Raffael Cavallaro schrieb: > On 2006-06-16 17:59:07 -0400, Joachim Durchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >> I think it's easier to start with a good (!) statically-typed language >> and relax the checking, than to start with a dynamically-typed one and >> add static checks. > > This is purely a matter of programming style. For explorative > programming it is easier to start with dynamic typing and add static > guarantees later rather than having to make decisions about > representation and have stubs for everything right from the start.
Sorry for being ambiguous - I meant to talk about language evolution. I agree that static checking could (and probably should) be slightly relaxed: compilers should still do all the diagnostics that current-day technology allows, but any problems shouldn't abort the compilation. It's always possible to generate code that will throw an exception as soon as a problematic piece of code becomes actually relevant; depending on the kind of run-time support, this might abort the program, abort just the computation, or open an interactive facility to correct and/or modify the program on the spot (the latter is the norm in highly dynamic systems like those for Lisp and Smalltalk, and I consider this actually useful). I don't see static checking and explorative programming as opposites. Of course, in practice, environments that combine these don't seem to exist (except maybe in experimental or little-known state). Regards, Jo -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list