"S.D.Mechveliani" wrote: > > I am not a specialist and can mistake and confuse things, but I > wonder > whether a notion of a strongly typed language is so > scientifically important. > The same is with the `compile-time' and `run-time' separation. > There is no scientific reason why all computations with types and > type resolution should preceed all computations with non-types. > Very often the types need to behave like ordinary data. > Would it be reasonable to avoid as possible the restriction of > strong typing in language specification?
No scientific reason, but a strong engineering reason. The engineering idea is to test a design with all available tools before building it. That way there will be no disasters that could have been forseen. The computing equivalent of an engineering disaster is for a program to get a run-time error or to produce an incorrect result. If this outcome is acceptable, then the program probably wasn't important enough to be worth writing in the first place. --brian _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell