Xref: utzoo comp.lang.misc:7085 comp.object:2898 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.object Subject: Re: Dynamic typing -- To Have and Have Not (was Runti Message-ID: <7525:Mar2623:13:2491@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Date: 26 Mar 91 23:13:24 GMT References: <16 Organization: IR Lines: 18 In article kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin) writes: > Sorry, Dan, but this doesn't answer my question Look, static typing gives me both fast compile times and fast run times. Dynamic typing used to lose big on run times; all the interesting recent work on dynamically typed languages has been in optimization, but for those reasonably competitive run times they lose big on compile times. Why should I pay that price, especially during development when I need both fast compiles and fast runs for good turnaround? > As for ``the final code is hellishly slow'' when the compiler does not attempt > to optimise out dynamic typing, what sort of factor are you talking about? 2? > 10? 100? Between 2 and 10. It usually depends on how many of the library routines have been written in a faster language. ---Dan