"no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 2005-10-07, Diez B. Roggisch schreef <deets at web.de>:
>
> Well, that exactly is the point where we make the transition from "this
> is how things work" to pure speculation.

Everything starts with pure speculation. I had no intention of
introducing the big type system here. I just think people who
oppose type systems, limit themselves too much to how things
currently work and from there oppose anything that resembles
a type system instead of thinking of what they would like
a type system to do even if it is not implemtable now.

> Can't say that there won't be
> a solution someday - but certainly it requires much more, and from
> above nobody can say that this would solve _any_ problem.
>
> What you propose above is what JAVA does - plus more dynamicity.

So it isn't exactly JAVA afterall.

> Well,
> given that even the  "non-dynamic, everything has to be annotated" JAVA
> fails to deal with ANY (called Object there),

So please explain how my system fails with the ANY.

> I can't see how a more
> dynamic environment will do _better_ in that respect.

You first argued that a type system had to limit the coder and you
gave the example of the homegeneous list. I suggested an ANY type
and asked how a homegeneous list of ANY's would limit the coder.
Your respons was that this was like a JAVA Object or C void* hack,
that can be used to circumvent the type system and cause all kinds
of problems, presumebly python was not vulnerable to.

So I would either like you to explain how my idea can be used to
circumvent the type system and cause problems, which don't
concern python or explain how this system will limit the coder
with respect what can be done in python.


> So unless you lay
> out some more detailed ideas how that works, this surely won't do much
> if any better than JAVA does today - and JAVA sucks _precisely_ because
> of the half-static-half-dynamic nature. It gives you both troubles -
> runtime errors like in python, together with compile-time limitations.

I have no need to convince you. It was you who made this claim how
a type system had to limit the coder. That you can't see how it
could be done is not an argument. Surely if a typesystem *must* limit
the user or else cause all kinds of problems as more general argument
can be given that doesn't depend on the specific implementation.

> Let's face it: you don't know much about type-systems. I do know a bit
> more - but don't claim to possess the holy grail. And I don't say that
> more powerful analyzing isn't possible. However, all you do so far is
> fantasizing and "fail to see why not". Well, that failure might be
> because of limited sight on your side - not necessarily on our, which
> you constantly claim.

Well, I could accept that if you would have explained what the problem
would be with my system instead of just saying you couldn't see how
it would be more usefull than JAVA Objects.

> Visions are a nice thing - but actually, in the scientific domain not
> so much a vision, but proofs are what is needed.

Well you made the claim that a type system had to limit the coder.
Now prove your claim. Untill this is done I see no problem thinking
about type systems that don't limit the coder.

> And if you consider it
> hostile that nobody buys your ideas because so far they aren't more
> than marketing/whishful thinking, I'm sorry that I can't help you.

I don't consider it hostile that nobody buys my ideas. I considered
the environment here hostile to type systems long before I brought
my two cents to the discussions about this subject here.

-- 
Antoon Pardon