>> But the more important issue is that humans can't write static types >> correctly. In today's systems, the types involved are complex enough that >> when humans are asked to state them they come up with typings that are not >> complete. > > Are you saying _no one_ will understand the type system well enough to > write good types? I don't think so. It sounds like you want BitC to be > useful to people who don't know how to use it.
i don't understand the point (...either; or possibly just me). for typed languages with inference i don't think i've ever used one that outright prevented me from annotating with my own types if i want? and i am under the impression that furthermore inferencers always go wrong somewhere so the system much allow humans to interfere. even just looking at it the other way around: what if i want to write my types first and then fill in the details. i think that's a valid thing and should be supported. or, write code then write types and then fix my code to fit the types (i've done this, it is similar to writing the unit test and then fixing the code to just pass the test; it is a weird-good experience when it works). i suspect this is all wooshing way over my head, apologies. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
