<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Randal L. Schwartz <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:merlyn@stonehenge.com">merlyn@stonehenge.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
I'm giving a talk in two weeks on the advantages of value typing (aka duck<br>
typing or late binding) vs variable typing (aka compile-time typing or [ugh]<br>
"strong typing"). I'll certainly be drawing on my nearly-four-decade<br>
experience of programming, but if any of you have a favorite paper<br>
or slide deck or anecdote to share in this area, please point me.<br>
I'll make the result available under a generous license. Thanks.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>While not directly addressing the topic of static vs dynamic type checking systems, I think the following paper by Gilad Bracha provides good insight on the subject (and reflects his experience on the subject with Strongtalk):</div>
<div><a href="http://pico.vub.ac.be/~wdmeuter/RDL04/papers/Bracha.pdf">http://pico.vub.ac.be/~wdmeuter/RDL04/papers/Bracha.pdf</a></div><div><br></div><div>For me, the problem with statically typed languages isn't that they have a type checking system, it's that they have a pathetically inept and inhibiting type checking system.</div>
<div><br></div><div>- Stephen</div></div>