From: Alexis Read alexis.r...@gmail.com
To: Fundamentals of New Computing fonc@vpri.org
Sent: Sat, June 4, 2011 3:34:13 PM
Subject: Re: [fonc] Static typing and/vs. boot strap-able, small kernel,
comprehensible, user modifiable systems
The extreme case of this -- where
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Scott McLoughlin scottmc...@gmail.comwrote:
My intention was to far more specifically ask: why small
core, user comprehensible and modifiable, and boot-strapable
systems seem to be the province of either latently typed (Smalltak,
Lisp, Scheme, Icon (?), etc.)
...@gmail.com
*To:* Fundamentals of New Computing fonc@vpri.org
*Sent:* Sat, June 4, 2011 3:34:13 PM
*Subject:* Re: [fonc] Static typing and/vs. boot strap-able, small kernel,
comprehensible, user modifiable systems
The extreme case of this -- where the variables are actually constrained
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Scott McLoughlin scottmc...@gmail.com wrote:
For many, many moons, I've examined the early Smalltalk
books, small bootstrap Forth systems, Lisp based systems
(implementing a large subset of CL decades ago) and the like.
In recent years, I've taken an interest
...@laptop.org
To: Fundamentals of New Computing fonc@vpri.org
Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 9:56:21 PM
Subject: Re: [fonc] Static typing and/vs. boot strap-able, small kernel,
comprehensible, user modifiable systems
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Scott McLoughlin scottmc...@gmail.com wrote:
What
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Scott McLoughlin scottmc...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
So I'll rephrase my question in this manner. We can imagine a
Smalltalk or Lisp or Forth machine. Can we imagine a machine
predicated on a statically typed language - a Haskell machine, or
OCaml Machine or
On 04 Jun 2011, at 16:52 , Scott McLoughlin wrote:
So I'll rephrase my question in this manner. We can imagine a
Smalltalk or Lisp or Forth machine. Can we imagine a machine
predicated on a statically typed language - a Haskell machine, or
OCaml Machine or whatever - in the same way???
Two
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com wrote:
[...]
This left the other question and possible motivation for static type
checking, which was: could the tradeoffs it imposed still wind up helping
the programmers more than bogging them down?
The extreme case of this --
Kind Folks,
I just feel obligated to say that I had absolutely no intention
of introducing the far too well-worn debate between untyped,
latently typed and manifestly typed languages.
My intention was to far more specifically ask: why small
core, user comprehensible and modifiable, and
I think you answered your own question. A small core is small since it is
limited to what is required to make it run. This eases development and lets
you focus on what's important and interesting.
On Jun 4, 2011 6:06 PM, Scott McLoughlin scottmc...@gmail.com wrote:
Kind Folks,
I just feel
On 6/3/2011 8:37 PM, Scott McLoughlin wrote:
For many, many moons, I've examined the early Smalltalk
books, small bootstrap Forth systems, Lisp based systems
(implementing a large subset of CL decades ago) and the like.
In recent years, I've taken an interest in type systems and
typed
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 2:12 PM, John Nilsson j...@milsson.nu wrote:
Is static types really an intensic property of the language? In my mind
any language can be statically typed. It is just more or less hard to do.
Again, please read Gilad Bracha's position paper. He concisely enumerates
the
their way.
Cheers,
Alan
--
*From:* C. Scott Ananian csc...@laptop.org
*To:* Fundamentals of New Computing fonc@vpri.org
*Sent:* Fri, June 3, 2011 9:56:21 PM
*Subject:* Re: [fonc] Static typing and/vs. boot strap-able, small kernel,
comprehensible, user modifiable
For many, many moons, I've examined the early Smalltalk
books, small bootstrap Forth systems, Lisp based systems
(implementing a large subset of CL decades ago) and the like.
In recent years, I've taken an interest in type systems and
typed functional languages.
What is the relationship,
14 matches
Mail list logo
