On 8 March 2015 at 13:52, Lawrence Bottorff <borg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Does the Lisp world, specifically picoLisp, have a response to these
> insistent "Besserwisser" people?

I sincerely hope not.

Please don't turn this into a tribal thing. This is the sort of reasoning
that led to the CL community's terrifying reputation. Lisps (mostly) use
dynamic typing because their designers believe dynamic typing is more
appropriate. Dynamic typing is not, however, superior just because it's
used by Lisps. There is no need to "defend" anything with words when you
could be doing so by demonstrating superior engineering results. Nobody is
kicking in Lisp's door and taking away our programming licences because of
the dynamic types (if someone is acting like that - maybe you have an
annoying coworker IRL? - then they're not debating, they're being immature.
Don't lower the discourse by taking it to their level).

Just use the best tool for the job after carefully considering what exactly
it is you need done. All paradigms and type systems have their valid place.
You wouldn't use picoLisp to write e.g. CompCert (you could, but it'd have
to reinvent static types in order to do it; what a waste of energy). There
is no need for the hammers to declare war on the screwdrivers.

If you really need a counterargument favouring dynamic typing, consider
that there's absolutely nothing about dynamic types that's specific to Lisp
anyway: much bigger, more popular languages like Python, Ruby, JS etc. have
the same attribute and are used to build massive, reliable systems all the
time. They've already won this argument for you for all practical purposes.

Reply via email to