At Clojurewest 2016, Matthias Felleisen gave a great keynote about the pragmatism of soundness for maintening large code bases. He mentioned that adding type gradually was useful, but only when the border between typed land and untyped land is guarded. He mentioned how Racket does that. He also talked about the cost of doing so, which seem to remain an open question.
I'm wondering if any of this has been taken up by somebody in Clojure to try to do the same? My understanding is typed clojure does not protect the border between typed and untyped. Therefore, you do not have the guarantee that your typed code will be correct for all its usage. Also, does anyone know exactly what he meant by the cost? Is doing gradual typing causing slower runtimes, slower compilation, does it hamper the dynamism, etc. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
