Python from Wise Guy's Viewpoint

[Raffael Cavallaro]

Matthias Blume <find at my.address.elsewhere> wrote in message news:<m11xsx2aiu.fsf at tti5.uchicago.edu>...


> > > Pascal Costanza <costanza at web.de> writes:
> > No, for christ's sake! There are dynamically typed programs that you
> > cannot translate into statically typed ones!
> 
> Yes you can.  (In the worst case scenario you lose all the benefits of
> static typing.  But a translation is *always* possible. After all,
> dynamically typed programs are already statically typed in the trival
> "one type fits all" sense.)

This is sophistry at its worst. If you "translate" a dynamically typed
program into a statically typed language by eliminating all the static
type checking, then WTF is the point of the static type checking?

It's also possible to "translate" any program into a turing machine
tape, so we should all start coding that way!

Introducing TuringTape(TM), the ultimate bondage and discipline
language!