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

I know people argue but I don't think that there is anything to argue about.

There are some facts and people use those facts to make decision.

No ever seems to put those facts on paper, though.

On 5/30/07, Chongkai Zhu <czhu at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> 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
>
> _________________________________________________
>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>   http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
>
>