Curtis W wrote:
> > You do have to care about the internal representation. That is my
> > point. Trying to brush it under the carpet by providing a consistent
> > interface is asking for trouble.
>
> You only have to care when you interpret the numbers, not when you
> calculate them.

Nonsense. I already gave transitivity as a counter-example.

> > No, it has the advantage that the rest of your program can be
> > statically type checked. If most of your code is not in the dynamically
> > typed interface, then that benefit is worth having, otherwise it is
> > not.
>
> Ok, and what do you gain by having the rest of your program "statically
> type checked"?

Reliability.

> > > > Has anyone ever made a compiler for a dynamically typed language that gets
> > > > performance comparable to that of statically typed languages without having
> > > > massively longer compile times?
> > >
> > > I don't know. I think so. But does it really matter?
> >
> > Of course it matters. I'm not about to ditch statically typed languages
> > with compilers that exist and work because someone thinks that it might
> > be possible to write a compiler for a dynamically typed language that
> > offers the same benefits. Especially when all the evidence indicates
> > that this is wrong.
>
> This is a purely theoretical debate; nobody's trying to force you to
> use dynamic typing, we're merely correcting your misconceptions about
> dynamic typing.

Your theory is so detached from reality that it is worthless.

> > > What's important
> > > isn't if anyone _has_, but if it's _possible_. I think it is,
> >
> > I think it isn't even theoretically possible. Just look at the work
> > Stalin has to do to get decent run-time performance.
>
> I think it is. Of course, we could go on all day like this, so would
> you like to, perhaps, provide a reason why you think so?

Get good run- and compile-time from a dynamically typed language?
Because you need whole-program optimisation for a start.

> I've already
> walked you through a type inference example for my dynamically typed
> language; it's your turn.

>From my point of view, you have stated that you believe you can easily
do something that mankind has been trying and failing to do for 50
years.

> > Any way you cut it, if you "develop" a dynamic type system to provide
> > the benefits of a static type system then you've reinvented the static
> > type system.
>
> What is your reasoning behind this outlandish claim?

The benefits of static typing come at compile time. In order to get
those benefits, you must be doing static checking. That isn't
outlandish, it's obvious.

Cheers,
Jon.