From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Marko Rauhamaa Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: A couple of questions about goops method parameters Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2014 14:27:31 +0300 Message-ID: <878ulxgfa4.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> 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> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1410002883 2771 80.91.229.3 (6 Sep 2014 11:28:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 11:28:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Carlos Pita , David Thompson , "guile-user@gnu.org" To: Panicz Maciej Godek Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 06 13:27:56 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 1XQE9r-0006L4-DH for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sat, 06 Sep 2014 13:27:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34237 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XQE9q-0007fi-Sq for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sat, 06 Sep 2014 07:27:54 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36670) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XQE9c-0007fX-BB for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Sep 2014 07:27:46 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XQE9W-0001Uw-6p for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Sep 2014 07:27:40 -0400 Original-Received: from pacujo.net ([83.150.83.132]:41102) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XQE9V-0001Uq-VX for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Sep 2014 07:27:34 -0400 Original-Received: from elektro.pacujo.net (192.168.1.200) by elektro.pacujo.net; Sat, 6 Sep 2014 14:27:31 +0300 Original-Received: by elektro.pacujo.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 6 Sep 2014 14:27:31 +0300 In-Reply-To: (Panicz Maciej Godek's message of "Sat, 6 Sep 2014 10:53:58 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 83.150.83.132 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:11476 Archived-At: Panicz Maciej Godek : > However, I'd rather say that the lack of any type system in Guile is > an inconvinience, because static type checking allows to avoid a huge > class of software errors, and a good type system (like the one in > Haskell) actually enhances language's expressiveness. We already have a satisfactory selection of languages with static type annotation. The primary upside of static types is much faster code. The downside is boilerplate and clutter that make it a huge chore to write and maintain the code. 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. Marko