Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!pa.dec.com!jrdzzz.jrd.dec.com!tkou02.enet.dec.com!jit533!diamond
From: diamond@jit533.swstokyo.dec.com (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Dynamic typing (part 31,497)
Message-ID: <1991Apr26.021733.16488@tkou02.enet.dec.com>
Date: 26 Apr 91 02:17:33 GMT
References: <2397@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Sender: usenet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (USENET News System)
Reply-To: diamond@jit533.enet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (Norman Diamond)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Japan , Tokyo
Lines: 25

In article <2397@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
>In article  <1991Apr24.051522.28988@tkou02.enet.dec.com> Norman Diamond writes:
nd>> Maybe someday the two sides might agree
nd>>that the programmer should be allowed to specify types and/or classes
nd>>when it helps catch errors and/or improve efficiency, etc.; and that
nd>>the programmer should be allowed to omit specifications when it helps
nd>>speed development time or extend reusability.

dg>>>When the implementator
dg>>>does it, it leads to less code, less complexity, and fewer bugs.
dg>       ^ (meaing dynamic typing)
          ^ sorry, I thought you just meant "typing"

nd>>No.  When the programmer is allowed to do the portions that need it,
nd>>it can also lead to less complexity and fewer bugs.

dg>That doesn't make any sense.

Agreed.  I think the implementor should do dynamic typing.  However, the
programmer should specify the types of the static parts and specify which
parts are dynamic.  (Well never mind; this opinion got me fired from my
previous job, and is neither understood nor relevant at my present one.)
--
Norman Diamond       diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com
If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.