| Raffael Cavallaro 2007-07-30, 4:14 am |
| On 2007-07-29 14:42:10 -0400, Joachim Durchholz <jo@durchholz.org> said:
> In a language with type inference, you can work almost as freely as in
> a language with dynamic typing.
And if the limited correctness proofs and increased performance are
worth this inconvenience - 'almost as freely' isn't the same as 'as
freely' in exploratory programming - then you'll choose a modern
statically typed language. If the incovenience is not worth it to you,
you'll stick with lisp.
This isn't advanced mathematics people. The trade offs are obvious.
People who have used lisp and ocaml (for example) and continue to use
lisp obviously value the convenience and dynamism more than the limited
correctness proofs and some performance gains. Those who continue to
use ocaml (for example) obviously value the limited correctness proofs
and performance gains more.
What strikes the correspondents of c.l.l as sleazy is Jon's pretending
to be interested in lisp, but really only trying to sell his consulting
services in a newsgroup that has greater traffic than that for *all*
functional languages combined.
The greater traffic of c.l.l. might also suggest something about which
things more programmers value.
|