On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Scott McLoughlin <[email protected]> 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 functional languages. > > What is the relationship, positive and negative, between static > typing in language design and user-transparent and modifiable > systems bootstrapped from small kernels? > > Any elucidation or pointers to prior research greatly appreciated. > > - S.
In addition to the other pointers mentioned, here are some variations on the theme: "A soft-typing system for Erlang" http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.5.6211&rep=rep1&type=pdf "Typed Racket: Racket with Static Types" docs.racket-lang.org/ts-guide/index.html Note: This is just the user's guide for a working implementation, but the Racket (formerly PLT Scheme) group has put a lot of thought and work into "gradual" typing. And -- because you can't know where you're going unless you know where you've been -- I assume you've read Pierce's "Types and Programming Languages" (http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/tapl/) and, possibly, Kiselyov's article "Type Arithmetics" (http://okmij.org/ftp/Computation/type-arithmetics.html). Cheers, Mike _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
