Untyped Scheme should be built on Typed Scheme? WAS: Re: [plt-scheme] macro question

From: hendrik at topoi.pooq.com (hendrik at topoi.pooq.com)
Date: Mon Dec 22 16:12:56 EST 2008

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 09:40:26PM -0500, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
> > To the extent that an explicit type system can express those intentions,
> > it supports the programmer in his efforts to write correct code;  to the
> > extent that it does not, it gets in his way.  I really believe we know
> > enough about type systems not that it is possible to edvise hslpful
> > ones.  In the few cases where a decent type system cannot express the
> > programmers' intentions, there will have to be some kind of escape from
> > it, such as a type 'reference to anything', or 'reference to anything
> > with an encoding that can tell us what kind of thing it is at run time.'
> > But the overwhelming majority of code will involve variables about which
> > much more is statically known.
> >
> >  Static type checking is the most powerful easily implemented formal
> > verificatin tool we have in out eternal battle against bugs.  It doesn't
> > handle everything, but whe should use it for all it's worth.
> Out of curiosity, what is your mail client running on?  A Burroughs
> B6700 or analog?  (Surely not an x86 or PowerPC.)

An x86.  But it was probably *written* in C, which has a rudimentary 
type system.

> You should also consider revisiting the end-to-end paper, if it's been
> a while since you read it.

The end-to-end paper?  Could you provide a reference?

-- hendrik

Posted on the users mailing list.