Scott McLoughlin wrote on Sat, 04 Jun 2011 12:04:20 -0400 > My intention was to far more specifically ask: why "small > core, user comprehensible and modifiable, and boot-strapable" > systems seem to be the province of either latently typed (Smalltak, > Lisp, Scheme, Icon (?), etc.) or untyped (Forth, B (?)) languages > rather than... > > ...manifestly typed languages (wide variety - C++, D, Oberon, > Haskell, Standard ML and oodles more).
Having played a bit with Oberon on a raw 386 machine with 4MB of RAM, I would say it nicely disproves your theory. But I do agree with the others who have said that when searching for minimal solutions, a heavy type system is a good candidate for things to throw out. -- Jecel _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
