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

From: Prabhakar Ragde (plragde at uwaterloo.ca)
Date: Wed May 30 16:50:30 EDT 2007

kanishka <nish2575 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> OCAML (and Haskell)'s type systems pose such challenges that only  
> people with a PhD from a good group can really grok it so you have  
> more filtering there. [...] a guy can't self study is way through
> Pierce et al. 

I don't think that's quite true. I have not looked closely at OCAML, but 
the type inference algorithm in ML does largely what you would expect 
(that is, nothing too esoteric). Writing programs that type-check is 
another matter, especially coming from the Java sandbox or the C++ 
snakepit. But I think that working through Ullman's book on ML would 
give one a pretty good foundation without much hassle. As for Pierce, I 
think the first several chapters at least are easily within reach of a 
senior undergraduate with decent marks. You just have to not be 
intimidated by the notation and the idea of using formal techniques. 
Whether you have the motivation to do any of this without a supervisor 
or instructor breathing down your neck is another matter. --PR

Posted on the users mailing list.