Typing system vs. Java

[Donn Cave]

Quoth anamax at earthlink.net (Andy Freeman):
...
| Python's type system has some marvelous properties.  Feel free to
| produce a static type system that is as powerful.  Then you get to
| make the complexity argument.  Or, you get to make the "but programmers
| don't need all that power" argument.  Or both.

It's hard to compare Python vs. Haskell or OCaml and decide whose
type system is more powerful, just because that isn't a quantifiable
measure, but I bet your evident interest in these matters would be
well rewarded by learning a little of one or the other.

The "programmers don't need all that power" argument is already
being made, though, if you take the time to read more current
threads in c.l.p.  Run-time dynamism in certain aspects of the
system is at odds with type/class unification, to questionable
value added due to the lack of transparency (because you don't
know even after you have seen the code - who knows what changes
some other code may make here at run time), and the obstacles
to optimization due to the same lack of transparency.

	Donn Cave, donn at drizzle.com