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

From: Shriram Krishnamurthi (sk at cs.brown.edu)
Date: Sun Dec 21 21:40:26 EST 2008

> 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.)

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


Posted on the users mailing list.