[plt-scheme] Why do folks implement *dynamically* typed languages?

From: Richard Cobbe (cobbe at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Fri Jun 1 20:27:10 EDT 2007

On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 09:27:54AM -0400, hendrik at topoi.pooq.com wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 09:06:53PM -0400, Anton van Straaten wrote:
> >
> > That issue alone can make the argument for a language like Ruby, or
> > Scheme, in many cases.  Languages that put you in control in the way
> > that DLs do have been called "freedom languages":
> >
> >   http://codecraft.info/index.php/archives/20/
> I've heard languages tha put you in control that SLs do called
> "police-state languages".

Ah, nothing brings reason to a discussionlike an emotionally and
politically loaded analogy.

(To be clear: "freedom" is just as loaded as "police-state.")


Posted on the users mailing list.