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

On Jun 2, 2007, at 11:21 AM, Bill Wood wrote:

> On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 10:28 -0600, Richard Cleis wrote:
>    . . .
>> Are we 'ordered' into software prisons that have too much freedom?
>> Do we choose type systems to introduce a higher level of
>> civilization?  Are we trying to escape to other programming  
>> paradigms?
>
> I have found this to be a fascinating discussion, and I am curiously
> conflicted.  I like the "SL"-style type systems but I just feel more
> comfortable in lisp.  Still, even if I start a project by making balls
> of mud it doesn't take long for me to start documenting data  
> structures
> and functions with Haskell-style type annotations and thinking "if  
> only
> there was a tool that could check these for me".  I haven't tried  
> Typed
> Scheme yet, but it looks interesting.
>
>  -- Bill Wood
>
>

I wonder how much of the inefficiencies of programming are due to the  
level of freedom that we have (whether it is high or low), compared  
to inefficiencies due to all of the other reasons (incorrect  
assumptions, flawed specification, etc.) that occur no matter what  
language is used.  I am forever wondering why programming seems like  
it should be easier and faster than it ever turns out to be.  Maybe  
we are 'doing it all wrong.'

rac