Torben Ægidius Mogensen wrote: > Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Torben Ægidius Mogensen wrote: > >>> So while it may take longer to get a program that gets >>> past the compiler, it takes less time to get a program that works. >> That's incorrect. See http://haskell.org/papers/NSWC/jfp.ps - >> especially Figure 3. > > There are many other differences between these languages than static > vs. dynamic types, and some of these differences are likely to be more > significant. What you need to test is langauges with similar features > and syntax, except one is statically typed and the other dynamically > typed. > > And since these languages would be quite similar, you can use the same > test persons: First let one half solve a problem in the statically > typed language and the other half the same problem in the dynamically > typed language, then swap for the next problem. If you let a dozen > persons each solve half a dozen problems, half in the statically typed > language and half in the dynamically typed language (using different > splits for each problem), you might get a useful figure.
...and until then claims about the influence of static type systems on the speed with which you can implement working programs are purely guesswork. That's the only point I need to make to show that your original unqualified statement, namely that it takes less time to get a program that works, is incorrect. Pascal -- 3rd European Lisp Workshop July 3 - Nantes, France - co-located with ECOOP 2006 http://lisp-ecoop06.bknr.net/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list