3 ms·
It's my guess that a rich static type system would be harder to implement for a non-functional language, due to mutability and such. Though there could also jus
by _bxg1 6y ago
It's my guess that a rich static type system would be harder to implement for a non-functional language, due to mutability and such. Though there could also just be cultural overlap between the people who want to write a small statically-typed language and the people who like the functional paradigm
- throwaway894345 6y ago> It's my guess that a rich static type system would be harder to implement for a non-functional language, due to mutability and such. Only if you represent (im)mutability in the type system, and I would argue that you shouldn't for an embedded scripting language. We don't want to constrain every aspect of the program to the type system; we just want some quick assurance that the shapes snap together properly. > Though there could also just be cultural overlap between the people who want to write a small statically-typed language and the people who like the functional paradigm No doubt.