Functional - Re: shootout: implementing an interpreter for a simple procedural language Minim

You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread. To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to this thread please [click here]

Author

Re: shootout: implementing an interpreter for a simple procedural language Minim

Paul Rubin

2007-07-30, 4:14 am

Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> 1. http://www.cse.uconn.edu/~dqg/papers/cacm02.rtf
> 2. http://www.cse.uconn.edu/~dqg/papers/cie05.pdf
> 3. http://www.cse.uconn.edu/~dqg/inter_book.html

I don't see what these three links have to do with static vs dynamic
types in programming languages. Certainly, tons of interactive
programs are written in C and Java. The idea that the interactive
computation model is really different is a bit dubious too; see how
Haskell uses monads to implement sequenced computation in a functional
way.

I've written a lot more Lisp code than I've written Haskell or ML, so
maybe what I'm hoping for from static types is wishful thinking. But
I've made way more runtime type errors in Lisp than I'm happy about,
that could have been caught at compile time with a static language.

Sponsored Links