Stephen R Laniel a écrit : > On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 01:44:17PM +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: >> Indeed - static typing is for compilers, not for programmers. > > When done well, static typing helps the programmer
The closer thing to "well done static typing" I know is type inference (à la O'Caml). And I don't find it that helpfull to the programmer - here again, it's mainly to allow compile-time optimizations. (snip) > The example toward the end of how ML actually spots an > infinite loop at compile time seems to me to be "for > programmers" rather than "for compilers." It's been a long time since I last got into such a problem. Which BTW was very quickly spotted and fixed. Compared to what I would loose, I don't think this kind of "help" is so useful. Stephen, you may not know yet, but Python is *dynamic*. This defeats almost all compile-time checking. Of what help would type inference be when you can dynamically add/remove/replace attributes (including methods and class) at runtime ? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list