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

The arguement is already there for nearly 50 years, and will continue for more than 50 years.

Chongkai

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carl Eastlund" <cce at ccs.neu.edu>
To: "Grant Rettke" <grettke at acm.org>
Cc: <plt-scheme at list.cs.brown.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: [plt-scheme] Why do folks implement *dynamically* typed languages?


| 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?
| >
| 
| 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