From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,c406e0c4a6eb74ed X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!proxad.net!feeder2-1.proxad.net!news9-e.free.fr!not-for-mail Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 23:17:03 +0200 From: Lionel Draghi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; fr-FR; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040820 Debian/1.7.2-4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, it MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ADA Popularity Discussion Request References: <49dc98cf.0408110556.18ae7df@posting.google.com> <6F2Yc.848$8d1.621@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <413e2fbd$0$30586$626a14ce@news.free.fr> <9snhizowcwg9.16smaxkxhyu67$.dlg@40tude.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <413f770d$0$30111$626a14ce@news.free.fr> Organization: Guest of ProXad - France NNTP-Posting-Date: 08 Sep 2004 23:18:08 MEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.64.200.194 X-Trace: 1094678288 news9-e.free.fr 30111 82.64.200.194:53244 X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3510 Date: 2004-09-08T23:18:08+02:00 List-Id: jayessay wrote: ... > First, types are indeed part of program design in dynamic languages. > In some respects they are even more important than in static languages > as they exist at _all_ times: compile load (link) and run. They are > _always_ checked _all_ the time. If you want to say "Ooo! this has a > performance hit", fine, but with current systems any such checks are > basically in the noise. OTOH, you can annotate a dynamic program with > static type information and/or use type inference to remove this issue > from most cases. Jon, I am trying my best to understand you without knowing Lisp, but I don't. This is the second time you explain this, but you are to abstract for me. My point is that with static typing, most type related problems are caught at compil time, before any execution. Know, you say here that it is possible to write annotation to reach the same confort level in Lisp. Could you explain me how is this supposed to save time and money? .... > I'm simply trying to correct a lot of misinformation here about > (Common) Lisp, > "extreme/agile/incremental" development, and dynamically typed > languages in general. Correct me if I am wrong, but you stated that "Actually this sort of development will save you much more time and money than you could ever hope for from typical static typing." And this is misinformation: *OK*, Agile methods may save you money (althrough there is no silver bullet and some people reading this news group possibly have more effective development process, for exemple using formal proof and much less testing), *BUT*, static typing is still unbeatable, with or without test-fist practice, as I illustrate in another message. -- Lionel Draghi