3 ms·
Aren't these conflicting ideas? To me a big advantage of dynamic type systems is that specifying behaviour and specifying what parts of the behaviour are static
by jstimpfle 10y ago
Aren't these conflicting ideas? To me a big advantage of dynamic type systems is that specifying behaviour and specifying what parts of the behaviour are statically computed are separate tasks.
- thurn 10y agoYes. For example, the powerful "transducers" concept from Clojure essentially cannot be represented in the Haskell type system.
- eru 10y agoHere's an attempt: http://hypirion.com/musings/haskell-transducers http://hypirion.com/musings/haskell-transducers
- david-given 10y agoThere are some strongly typed Forths --- although I've never seen one that was out of prototype. Here's one I had a brief look at: http://www.arestlessmind.org/2009/02/03/intro.html http://www.arestlessmind.org/2009/02/03/intro.html Of course, since Forths are built around a REPL, to do type checking you need to keep the type objects around at run time, so it may not be suitable for very small systems.
- tines 10y agoYes, but they are not conflicting in the sense that they are competing to serve the same purpose. For exploratory programming, dynamic type systems are nice. For building reliable long-running systems or ones where failure is extremely costly, I like static.