Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!cs.ed.ac.uk!cs.edinburgh.ac.uk!nick
From: nick@cs.edinburgh.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Dynamic typing (part 3)
Message-ID: <8371@skye.cs.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 28 Mar 91 17:32:38 GMT
References: <602@optima.cs.arizona.edu> <2400035@otter.hpl.hp.com> <1991Mar27.161304.17666@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>
Sender: nnews@cs.ed.ac.uk
Reply-To: nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk
Organization: Tasha Yar Appreciation Soc... oh, sh*t
Lines: 39

In article <1991Mar27.161304.17666@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>, quale@saavik.cs.wisc.edu (Douglas E. Quale) writes:
> >typed languages are generally half to a tenth the size of programs in
> >statically typed languages"  Dan Bernstein reasonably writes back.
> >
> >] I don't believe you. Give an example.
> >
> 
> In Common Lisp,
> 
> (defun compose (f g)
>   (lambda (&rest) (funcall f (apply g &rest))))
> 
> I think it looks better in Scheme,
> 
> (define (compose f g)
>   (lambda x (f (apply g x))))
> 
> These definitions use dynamic typing to obtain polymorphism.

ML (statically typed):

	fun compose (f, g) x = f(g x)

This definition uses polymorphism to obtain polymorphism.

BTW, I undercut you by a few characters (and several brackets).

>I think it would take at least two orders of magnitude (probably three) to
>do this in C.

C is trashy, we know this already.

	Nick.

-- 
Nick Rothwell,	Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh.
                nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk    <Atlantic Ocean>!mcsun!ukc!lfcs!nick
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
           "I see what you see: Nurse Bibs on a rubber horse."