On Sep 13, 2011, at 12:26 AM, Brendan Eich wrote: > On Sep 12, 2011, at 12:22 PM, John J Barton wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:00 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Some of the discussion on this thread amounts to "IDEs work great for >> typed languages so let's make JS typed". What if we started with >> "What would be great for JavaScript developers"? Then we would not >> waste a lot of time talking about static analysis. It's the wrong >> tool. > > Why are you assuming that conclusion already? Why not answer your own > question "What would be great for JavaScript developers?" and if the answer > includes type inference, great?
John and I corresponded privately and we agreed that static is less than static+dynamic. That is something I tend to ass-ume, being an implementor (SpiderMonkey does analysis when compiling, and of course lots of runtime feedback-based code generation). So, static+dynamic. The static side has some powerful algorithms to bring to bear. Dynamic is necessary due to eval and kin, and gives strictly more information (and more relevant information!). /be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
