home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: gaia.ns.utk.edu!mbk
- From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matt Kennel)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.java,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk
- Subject: Re: Type systems, Dylan, Smalltalk, etc. (Was: Re: Will Java...)
- Followup-To: comp.lang.java,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk
- Date: 21 Apr 1996 01:42:24 GMT
- Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville and Oak Ridge National Laboratory
- Message-ID: <4lc3q0$d0s@gaia.ns.utk.edu>
- References: <31682FFE.2781E494@bbn.com> <dbell-1 <3171810F.2E2@funsys.se> <4l0f6o$sec@nkosi.well.com> <Dpyro4.8o9@news.hawaii.edu> <3176A500.4CAA@ccm.hf.intel.com>
- Reply-To: kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov
- NNTP-Posting-Host: caffeine.engr.utk.edu
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
-
- Patrick Logan (patrick_d_logan@ccm.hf.intel.com) wrote:
- : Consider the Stalin system for Scheme from U. Toronto.
-
- : This is approaching more of what I would consider the *best* of both
- : worlds: getting the performance and security of a statically
- : typed language without ever having to explicitly name a type.
-
- Then how do you get the security if you don't name a type?
-
- The point is that when you give variable declarations you are
- providing extra information to the computer about what
- the program should be doing, and constraining what it might do
- given any inputs.
-
- I agree that 100% manifest type declarations isn't desirable.
-
-