Static typing

[Pascal Costanza]

Dirk Thierbach wrote:

> Pascal Costanza <costanza at web.de> wrote:
> 

>>I have given reasons when not to use a static type system in this 
>>thread. 
> 
> 
> Nobody forces you to use a static type system. Languages, with their
> associated type systems, are *tools*, and not religions. You use
> what is best for the job.

_exactly!_

That's all I have been trying to say in this whole thread.

Marshall Spight asked 
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=MoEkb.821534%24YN5.832338%40sccrnsc01 
why one would not want to use a static type system, and I have tried to 
give some reasons.

I am not trying to force anyone to use a dynamically checked language. I 
am not even trying to convince anyone. I am just trying to say that 
someone might have very good reasons if they didn't want to use a static 
  type system.

>>Please take a look at the Smalltalk MOP or the CLOS MOP and tell 
>>me what a static type system should look like for these languages!
> 
> 
> You cannot take an arbitrary language and attach a good static type
> system to it. Type inference will be much to difficult, for example.
> There's a fine balance between language design and a good type system
> that works well with it.

Right. As I said before, you need to reduce the expressive power of the 
language.

> If you want to use Smalltalk or CLOS with dynamic typing and unit
> tests, use them. If you want to use Haskell or OCaml with static typing
> and type inference, use them. None is really "better" than the other.
> Both have their advantages and disadvantages. But don't dismiss
> one of them just because you don't know better.

dito

Thank you for rephrasing this in a probably better understandable way.

Pascal