From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: nicolas.pouillard@gmail.com (Nicolas Pouillard)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:44:11 +0200
Subject: [sup-talk] In next: thread-view-mode labelling No method join
	for Set
In-Reply-To: <1251137007-sup-3974@masanjin.net>
References: <1250714501-sup-3033@chigamba>
	<1250727630-sup-3112@yoom.home.cworth.org>
	<1251137007-sup-3974@masanjin.net>
Message-ID: <1251185965-sup-6316@peray>

Excerpts from William Morgan's message of Mon Aug 24 20:13:43 +0200 2009:
> Reformatted excerpts from Carl Worth's message of 2009-08-19:
> > I've attached a patch that at least makes the crashes I was able ro
> > reproduce go away.
> 
> Applied, thanks!
> 
> > [*] Totally off-topic: This is one of the things about "dynamically
> > typed" languages that I've never been able to wrap my brain around. I
> > really like that with static typing I can trust the compiler to help
> > me be very thorough if I make a type change like this, (and catch all
> > the cases before shipping any code). Instead, here, there's a hard
> > task of exercising every possible code path (at run time) before we
> > know if there are any type errors still lingering. I've seen some
> > proponents of dynamically-typed languages argue that unit testing
> > should provide the same coverage that a statically-typed compiler
> > would, but I haven't seen that in practice.

[...]

> I do believe that if I were using a statically-typed
> language, development would be significantly slower, and Sup would be
> nowhere near the point it is now. I have no proof of this statement, of
> course.

I don't really want to start troll on this subject... However it depends
on what kind of statically-typed language to talk about, if you mean Java
or C++ then I agree with you, the development would be much sloooower.
Although if we take a language like Haskell (or OCaml, or Scala...) the
development become really competitive.

Best regards,

-- 
Nicolas Pouillard
http://nicolaspouillard.fr