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

From: Carl Eastlund (cce at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Wed May 30 19:30:05 EDT 2007

On 5/30/07, Grant Rettke <grettke at acm.org> wrote:
> That is what I don't understand. It is so seemingly obvious that it is
> better to have Sl, yet, the latest hot language that everyone wants to
> know and love is Ruby, which is a DL. Is it mass hysteria or what is
> happening?
> On 5/30/07, Michael Vanier <mvanier at cs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> > How about modular type systems?  Import this module, get this kind of type checking...

If we could do that -- mix and match type systems freely and easily --
we would.  They don't combine easily.  It's not like we never thought
of it.  Those of us who aren't satisfied with just one type system
often have to settle for Scheme, and the type system(s) in our head.
Static type checking just can't keep up with us.

We've given you this and other reasons for using dynamic languages,
and you still say it's "obviously" better to have statically typed
languages.  Were our answers unbelievable?  Did they fail to make
sense?  It's fine if you simply disagree - everyone has their own
favorite kind of language - but if you don't understand what we're
saying, perhaps you can ask for specific clarification.

Carl Eastlund

Posted on the users mailing list.