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

From: Paulo J. Matos (pocm at soton.ac.uk)
Date: Wed May 30 12:57:51 EDT 2007

On 5/30/07, Matthias Felleisen <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> If I were to write batch programs for a living and a company, I
> may choose OCAML simply to restrict the pool of programmer-applicants
> to the intelligent ones. And also because my priorities would shift
> from invention to fear of maintenance. But I may also stick with
> PLT Scheme and pour the necessary energy into Typed Scheme to make
> it fully operational.

Now you got me. I was expecting you to choose PLT Scheme, no questions
asked. Anyway, PLT Scheme will alse restrict the pool of
programmer-applicants to the intelligent ones, right?
Now, from what I understood from the last sentence, you say a company
should use for it's production code a statically typed programming
language (and then if you'd use PLT Scheme, you'd stick to Typed
Scheme?). How about using PLT-Scheme + Contracts and forget types in a
company environment (using the type system in modules interfaces as a
kind of soft type checking)?

I'm interested on this one... :)

Paulo Jorge Matos - pocm at soton.ac.uk
PhD Student @ ECS
University of Southampton, UK

Posted on the users mailing list.