Marshall wrote: > I am sceptical of the idea that when programming in a dynamically > typed language one doesn't have to think about both models as well. > I don't have a good model of the mental process of working > in a dynamically typed language, but how could that be the case? > (I'm not asking rhetorically.) Do you then run your program over > and over, mechanically correcting the code each time you discover > a type error? In other words, if you're not thinking of the type model, > are you using the runtime behavior of the program as an assistant, > the way I use the static analysis of the program as an assistant?
Yes. > I don't accept the idea about pairing the appropriateness of each > system according to whether one is doing exploratory programming. > I do exploratory programming all the time, and I use the static type > system as an aide in doing so. Rather I think this is just another > manifestation of the differences in the mental processes between > static typed programmers and dynamic type programmers, which > we are beginning to glimpse but which is still mostly unknown. Probably. > Oh, and I also want to say that of all the cross-posted mega threads > on static vs. dynamic typing, this is the best one ever. Most info; > least flames. Yay us! Yay! :) 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
