"John Roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message This may sound a bit cynical, but most real uber-programmers have either Lisp or Smalltalk in their backgrounds, and frequently both one. Neither of those languages have static typing, and they simply don't need it.
LISP has type declarations. Everybody I know doing production work in LISP uses them. It's the only way to get reasonable performance out of LISP compiled code.
I also think some smalltalk allow you to tag stuff with type hints for performance.
Which raises what, to me, is the central question. If we have optional static typing, can I get a performance enhancement out of it? If not, why bother?
for documentation and 'crash early' purposes, I'd say.
Btw, why don't we rip out the approach of CL and some schemes that offer optional typing ? (not that I understand how those work, anyway)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
