Alex Martelli a écrit : > Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... > >>I still maintain that the primary *practical* reason behind static >>typing is to provide optimization clues for the compiler. You can (or at > > > It's definitely a helpful aspect, yes -- given that compilers able to > infer types are still not very common for widely used languages;
or given that languages using a type-inferenced based system are not very widely used... (snip) >>least could) have declarative static typing with very few type >>*checking* - I may be wrong here but I think one could even write a C >>compiler without *any* type checking. Heck, the programmer said it's a >>char*, so it must be one, right ?-) > > > That compiler, I believe, would violate the ISO standard for C (so > calling it a "C compiler" would be about as correct as calling it a > banana, in my view:-). Lol. That being said, there were bananas - oops, I meant C compilers - before the standard existed !-) > >>wrt/ proofs of correctness, I'll just point to the spectacular failure >>of Ariane, which was caused by a *runtime* type error in a system > > > I like a quote by Knuth -- "beware this program may have bugs as I have > only proven it and not tested it":-) Yeps. > >>Hmmm... For a dinausor, C seems well alive. Can you remind me which > > So do chickens. > I'm afraid I didn't get the joke... Are you saying that C is a rather, well, primitive language ? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
