Xref: utzoo comp.lang.misc:3820 comp.software-eng:2721
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!uw-june!david
From: david@cs.washington.edu (David Callahan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: An Interesting View of "Strong" Vs. "Weak" Typing
Keywords: typing, Ada, Lisp, definitions, evidence
Message-ID: <10287@june.cs.washington.edu>
Date: 5 Jan 90 07:45:11 GMT
References: <641@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: david@june.cs.washington.edu (David Callahan)
Organization: Tera Computer Co., Seattle WA
Lines: 15

>> More accurately, run-time typing places the burden on the run-time
>> system, whereas compile-time typing places the burden on the
>> compiler *and* the programmer (who must provide explicit type
>> declarations and obey them at all times during program
>> development). 

This statement is misleading. Many research languages perform
compile-time type checking based on type-inference algorithms and
allowing a powerful, polymorphic type system. While research work
indicates that type-inference at reasonable generality is undecidable,
it does not seem to be a tremendous problem in practice.

-- 
David Callahan  (david@tera.com, david@june.cs.washington.edu,david@rice.edu)
Tera Computer Co. 	400 North 34th Street  		Seattle WA, 98103