On Jun 30, 8:30 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul Rubin a écrit : > > > Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>> [A type system is a] tractable syntactic method for proving the > >>> absence of certain program behaviors by classifying phrases > >>> according to the kinds of values they compute. (Pierce 2002)." > > >>Is this supposed to contradict my assertion that *static* typing is > >>for compilers ? > > > Yes, the main benefit these days is to prove the absence of certain > > types of bugs in the program. > > As someone said, if declaring types thrices was enough to ensure > correctness, I'd happily do so. > > I still maintain that the primary *practical* reason behind static > typing is to provide optimization clues for the compiler.
The primary *practical* reason for static typing is that it allows large software companies to convince customers that they have *the* method to allow them to apply divide & conquer techniques to solve their problems with a large team of programmers and justifying large fees. How many of those cancelled UK government software projects that cost me hundreds of millions of pounds were programmed by people espousing the greater safety of their static typing? - Paddy. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
