From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Taylan Ulrich Bayirli/Kammer Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: A couple of questions about goops method parameters Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2014 13:54:03 +0200 Message-ID: <878ulxezhg.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> References: <1409905923.9245.5.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> <871trpridm.fsf@izanagi.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <871trpkdbf.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <87bnqtiukx.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <878ulxgfa4.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1410004465 19390 80.91.229.3 (6 Sep 2014 11:54:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 11:54:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Carlos Pita , David Thompson , "guile-user@gnu.org" To: Marko Rauhamaa Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 06 13:54:17 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XQEZN-0007wC-7v for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sat, 06 Sep 2014 13:54:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34261 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XQEZM-0001AG-Uz for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sat, 06 Sep 2014 07:54:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39122) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XQEZE-00019k-73 for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Sep 2014 07:54:09 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XQEZC-000089-SO for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Sep 2014 07:54:08 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-lb0-x22a.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c04::22a]:54782) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XQEZC-00007z-Ko for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Sep 2014 07:54:06 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id s7so465473lbd.29 for ; Sat, 06 Sep 2014 04:54:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=hRHZKjLlwwgsGjdQweig0UEoA1jYyHRlO/mppzT+ECM=; b=F9h89tXJF4JG/7kZjKeZlC+PlasmGS9fyt9o9apK6JDnxsLSyKCWzghnjjJGyeCcqa sckW0KK0sRpKKCgm1BkjCZQHHCRp+Jf8y1uCJBmoHVU3XdFDVMEkspde6pOZNFZ+4XYu Sr52ESdWOTQmBHaoAjUIDx1s3rbyGZAAuOpsF18mXjIlnn9q05bG8ynNyeZ/oSdisNr3 2TbqR+iOtKDF4j+IpCHHiGXafDQEC2p1piJuxbepW/cUB31Q+PNO8qnixedN/WsiZ0hV gzWNUFCHV4utkc1lpVTKSHybHrap3dqcOnY14UUnoj+L5Jf4SDTQ7QnYMFcJUwCoaV7M yLLg== X-Received: by 10.152.23.69 with SMTP id k5mr17554718laf.70.1410004445487; Sat, 06 Sep 2014 04:54:05 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from taylan.uni.cx (p200300514A1DE4510213E8FFFEED36FB.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:51:4a1d:e451:213:e8ff:feed:36fb]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id j3sm1568005lah.0.2014.09.06.04.54.04 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 06 Sep 2014 04:54:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <878ulxgfa4.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> (Marko Rauhamaa's message of "Sat, 06 Sep 2014 14:27:31 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:4010:c04::22a X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:11477 Archived-At: Marko Rauhamaa writes: > The primary upside of static types is much faster code. Optimization of dynamic typing can go pretty far AFAIK. In an ideal case, type-checks are hoisted to outside critical sections of code and don't affect the speed of e.g. a tight loop. And then there's JIT and all that jazz... > The downside is boilerplate and clutter that make it a huge chore to > write and maintain the code. Users of languages with good static type systems like ML and Miranda descendants would rather argue that types make the program more maintainable, and aren't too much of a bother since they're inferred in many common cases. Not my own experience, but I have no reason for a wholesale disbelief against them (only skepticism on *how* great static typing is). > In my experience, high-level programming languages allow you to > accomplish more challenging feats with better quality and productivity > than statically typed languages. > > I'm saying use low-level programming languages when you have to and > high-level programming languages when you can. Using high-level/dynamically-typed, and low-level/statically-typed as synonyms seems pretty wrong. There are very low-level dynamically typed languages (Forth), and very high-level statically typed ones (Haskell). Taylan