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

>>
No. A huge advantage of a language like Scheme is that the entry  
barrier is much lower than for OCAML. So anyone can program a little  
bit in Scheme. And that's just fine.

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. If they also want to work in industry you know  
that they are not into research per se. You're all set.
>>

this is really where i want to be someday (after i get through studying
AI/knowledge representation)....if matthias says so, maybe i will learn
my type system theory...a phd? a guy can't self study is way through
Pierce et al. 

i'm assuming the complexity would be that, even if anybody could
program in OCAML, few people could really use the tool and static type
to its full advantage unless she/he understand the theory and
implementation of type systems and type inference. correct me if i'm
wrong. 

>>
which is why I would at this moment start with  
OCAML for batch programs. (If I have to use GUI/graphics, forget it.  
PLT Scheme is it.)
>>

as an aside, from what i've seen, majority have a gui. but a web gui.
(guis are a pain to keep distributing, and almost impossible if you
have a client base distributed across the world) 
so you're back to plt.. but plt web in production, its great, but i
still hesitate. i'm guessing you would actually end up using OCAML ->
mainstream language front end or PLT Web -> mainstream language web
server proxy.



       
____________________________________________________________________________________Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz