Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Dynamic typing (part 3)
Message-ID: <7RFAP54@xds13.ferranti.com>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
References: <1366@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 91 15:12:39 GMT

Fine. There are type A languages and type B languages. There are good
reasons for having both. I prefer type A languages because they are simpler
to implement, which means I can get a decent implementation of them on
a consumer machine. I would love to have a good type B language on my
Amiga, though I'd still use a type A one for a lot of stuff: real-time
response seems to require it (I can't see doing MIDI processing in Lisp
on a 68000).

The problem is, a *decent* type B language compiler is about the size of
GCC (an *excellent* type A language compiler). They won't fit on PCs, and
the market share of other consumer machines is just too small.

*MY* challenge: give me an alternative.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  `-_-'  peter@ferranti.com
+1 713 274 5180.  'U`  "Have you hugged your wolf today?"