Re: A couple of questions about goops method parameters

[Taylan Ulrich Bayirli/Kammer]

Panicz Maciej Godek <address@hidden> writes:

> 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. It's an issue
> that's been talked over so many times, that it's already present in
> comic strips:
> http://ro-che.info/ccc/17

I suspect that comic strip comes from someone who mostly witnessed silly
flamewars between Haskellites with a higher-than-thou attitude, and CS
unwary users of languages like JavaScript, Python, Ruby, etc. ;)

In fact, the whole mention of a "battle" between the two groups, and
showing zero overlap between the "proponents" of either strategy, tells
me that the author is seriously misguided themselves.  Maybe I'm reading
too much into it, but what's at least obvious is that the author is a
fan of Haskell.

I'm sure that most serious Lispers and other CS-aware dynlang users are
aware of the expressive power of good static type systems, and have
respect for ML and Miranda descendants.  However, I don't know of any
hard evidence for the relevancy of the class of bugs prevented by static
typing, given there is otherwise good program design and documentation.
Only recently I met a static typing proponent who was merely spiteful
against the horrible practices of some web developers (JavaScript users)
they worked with...

A good optional static type system could be neat for Guile, but not sure
what priority this should have.  (For now I would rather want sealed
modules and the ability to static-import them into another.)

Taylan