Anders J. Munch wrote:
> Rob Thorpe wrote:
> > Anders J. Munch wrote:
> >> Let u(t) be the actual memory used by the program at time t.
> >> Let r(t) be the size of reachable memory at time t.
> >>
> >> Require that u(t) is a member of O(t -> max{t&#
Anders J. Munch wrote:
> Rob Thorpe wrote:
> > Anders J. Munch wrote:
> >> Really? So how do you write a portable program in CL, that is to
> >> run for unbounded lengths of time?
> >
> > You can't.
> >
> > The thing about the spe
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> "Rob Thorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Anders J. Munch wrote:
> >> jayessay wrote:
> >> > Please note: GC is not part of CL's definition. It is likely not part
> >> > of any Lisp's definition (
Anders J. Munch wrote:
> jayessay wrote:
> > Please note: GC is not part of CL's definition. It is likely not part
> > of any Lisp's definition (for reasons that should be obvious), and for
> > the same reasons likely not part of any language's definition.
>
> Really? So how do you write a port
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> Mathias Panzenboeck a écrit :
> > Rob Thorpe wrote:
> >
> >>Mathias Panzenboeck wrote:
> >>
> >>>Mark Tarver wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do
Robert Uhl wrote:
> Christophe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Robert Uhl a écrit :
> >
> >> The argument from popularity is invalid. French units have overtaken
> >> standard units,
> >
> > Never heard of that French unit thing. Unless you talk about that
> > archaic unit system that was in use b
Paul Rubin wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes; I'd rather go by what the standard says than rely on
> implementation-dependent hacks.
But in that case what do you call Python? The whole language has no
standard - is it an "implementation dependent hack"?
Standards are us
Juan R. wrote:
> Ken Tilton ha escrito:
> > You missed it? Google fight:
> >
> >http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Python&word2=Ruby
> >
> > Python wins, 74 to 69.3. And there is no Monty Ruby to help.
> >
> > ken
>
> Nice animation!
>
> http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?l
Alex Mizrahi wrote:
> (message (Hello 'Kay)
> (you :wrote :on '(8 Dec 2006 08:03:18 -0800))
> (
>
> KS> http://www.sbcl.org/manual/Handling-of-Types.html#Handling-of-Types
>
> KS> If you'd read the docs of the tools you admire you might find the
> KS> answers yourself.
>
> SBCL is a COMPILER th
Mathias Panzenboeck wrote:
> Mark Tarver wrote:
> > How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you
> > think that one has over the other?
> >
> > Note I'm not a Python person and I have no axes to grind here. This is
> > just a question for my general education.
> >
> > Mark
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Rob Thorpe wrote:
> >
> > But it differs from latently typed languages like python, perl or lisp.
> > In such a language there is no information about the type the variable
> > stores. The programmer cannot write code to test it, and so can
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
> Rob Thorpe wrote:
> >
> > Its easy to create a reasonable framework.
>
> Luca Cardelli has given the most convincing one in his seminal tutorial
> "Type Systems", where he identifies "typed" and "safe" as two
Dr.Ruud wrote:
> Rob Thorpe schreef:
>
> > I would suggest that at least assembly should be referred to as
> > "untyped".
>
> There are many different languages under the umbrella of "assembly", so
> your suggestion is bound to be false.
Well yes,
David Hopwood wrote:
> Rob Thorpe wrote:
> > David Hopwood wrote:
> >
> >>As far as I can tell, the people who advocate using "typed" and "untyped"
> >>in this way are people who just want to be able to discuss all languages in
> &g
David Hopwood wrote:
> Rob Thorpe wrote:
> > Vesa Karvonen wrote:
> >
> >>In comp.lang.functional Anton van Straaten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Let me add another complex subtlety, then: the above description misses
> >>>an
Dr.Ruud wrote:
> Rob Thorpe schreef:
> > Dr.Ruud:
> >> Marshall:
>
> >>> "dynamic types." I don't have a firm definition for
> >>> that term, but my working model is runtime type tags. In which
> >>> case, I would say that amo
Dr.Ruud wrote:
> Marshall schreef:
>
> > "dynamic types." I don't have a firm definition for
> > that term, but my working model is runtime type tags. In which
> > case, I would say that among statically typed languages,
> > Java does have dynamic types, but C does not. C++ is
> > somewhere in the
Vesa Karvonen wrote:
> In comp.lang.functional Anton van Straaten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Let me add another complex subtlety, then: the above description misses
> > an important point, which is that *automated* type checking is not the
> > whole story. I.e. that compile time/runtime distin
Rob Thorpe wrote:
> Chris Smith wrote:
> > Torben Ægidius Mogensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > That's not really the difference between static and dynamic typing.
> > > Static typing means that there exist a typing at compile-time that
> > &
David Hopwood wrote:
> Rob Thorpe wrote:
> > Matthias Blume wrote:
> >>"Rob Thorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >>>I think we're discussing this at cross-purposes. In a language like C
> >>>or another statically t
Matthias Blume wrote:
> "Rob Thorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> >> > No it doesn't. Casting reinterprets a value of one type as a value of
> >> >> > another type.
> >> >> > There is a difference. If I cast
Matthias Blume wrote:
> "Rob Thorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Matthias Blume wrote:
> >> "Rob Thorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > I think we're discussing this at cross-purposes. In a language like
> So, will y'all just switch from using "dynamically typed" to "latently
> typed", and stop talking about any real programs in real programming
> languages as being "untyped" or "type-free", unless you really are
> talking about situations in which human reasoning doesn't come into
> play? I think
Matthias Blume wrote:
> "Rob Thorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think we're discussing this at cross-purposes. In a language like C
> > or another statically typed language there is no information passed
> > with values indicating their type.
Pascal Costanza wrote:
> Matthias Blume wrote:
> > Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> (slot-value p 'address) is an attempt to access the field 'address in
> >> the object p. In many languages, the notation for this is p.address.
> >>
> >> Although the class definition for person does
Darren New wrote:
> Rob Thorpe wrote:
> > The compiler
> > relys entirely on the types of the variables to know how to correctly
> > operate on the values. The values themselves have no type information
> > associated with them.
>
> int x = (int) (20.5 / 3);
>
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
> Rob Thorpe wrote:
> >Andreas Rossberg wrote:
> >>Rob Thorpe wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>"A language is latently typed if a value has a property - called it's
> >>>>>type - attached to it, and given
Matthias Blume wrote:
> "Rob Thorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Andreas Rossberg wrote:
> >> Rob Thorpe wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>No, that isn't what I said. What I said was:
> >> >>>"A language is
Ketil Malde wrote:
> "Rob Thorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But it only gaurantees this because the variables themselves have a
> > type, the values themselves do not.
>
> I think statements like this are confusing, because there are
> differe
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
> Rob Thorpe wrote:
> >>
> >>>No, that isn't what I said. What I said was:
> >>>"A language is latently typed if a value has a property - called it's
> >>>type - attached to it, and given it's type it can
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
> Rob Thorpe wrote:
> >
> > No, that isn't what I said. What I said was:
> > "A language is latently typed if a value has a property - called it's
> > type - attached to it, and given it's type it can only represent value
Chris Smith wrote:
> Rob Thorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A language is latently typed if a value has a property - called it's
> > type - attached to it, and given it's type it can only represent values
> > defined by a certain class.
>
> I'
Chris Smith wrote:
> Torben Ægidius Mogensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's not really the difference between static and dynamic typing.
> > Static typing means that there exist a typing at compile-time that
> > guarantess against run-time type violations. Dynamic typing means
> > that such
Torben Ægidius Mogensen wrote:
> "Rob Thorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Torben Ægidius Mogensen wrote:
>
> > > That's the point: Bugs that in dynamically typed languages would
> > > require testing to find are found by the compiler
Torben Ægidius Mogensen wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Torben Ægidius Mogensen wrote:
> >
> > > On a similar note, is a statically typed langauge more or less
> > > expressive than a dynamically typed language? Some would say less, as
> > > you can write programs in a d
Torben Ægidius Mogensen wrote:
> On a similar note, is a statically typed langauge more or less
> expressive than a dynamically typed language? Some would say less, as
> you can write programs in a dynamically typed language that you can't
> compile in a statically typed language (without a lot of
36 matches
Mail list logo
