From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id F101CBC8B for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 02:11:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from rproxy.gmail.com (rproxy.gmail.com [64.233.170.203]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j1E1Bvdj016862 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 02:11:57 +0100 Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id g11so1046178rne for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 17:11:57 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=QSBZZFlGRJ63ukJrANq4OlcTOj6XLfseMR0in+aOOi7jZLQK1GMHUkHRqDmqUo02jWKyWBIyYwjeq/Geszis/jbVZypRZEdPKxeP3oBFYfKiRyhuhjd/uToE9vKsa9xpuxCp2rQCugFwCnVjJ0SPJC40KdIuI8Sm5V2nb8ZByMs= Received: by 10.38.74.34 with SMTP id w34mr186513rna; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 17:11:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.38.86.80 with HTTP; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 17:11:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <877e9a170502131711122bd34e@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 20:11:54 -0500 From: Michael Walter Reply-To: Michael Walter To: Thomas Fischbacher Subject: Re: [Caml-list] The boon of static type checking Cc: Daniel Heck , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <877e9a17050206221653d14456@mail.gmail.com> <20050213112630.73930e19@hobbes> <877e9a1705021312525337a907@mail.gmail.com> <877e9a1705021314512ff095b9@mail.gmail.com> <877e9a1705021316114d4e10f0@mail.gmail.com> X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 420FFADD.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 runtime:01 syntax:01 drawbacks:01 c--:01 compiler:01 escapes:01 syntax:01 ...:98 lisp:01 ghc:01 precisely:01 checking:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_BY_IP autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 01:42:11 +0100 (CET), Thomas Fischbacher wrote: > On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Michael Walter wrote: > > > You can just as well put another REPL at the top. MAXIMA is an example of > > > just one system that does precisely that. > > > > Exactly! That's creating a new language. > > Ok, then if you see it that way: the major difference then is that you do > not have to go through the daunting process of implementing all of the > runtime system so that it is (1) fast, (2) bugfree, (3) sufficiently > complete to be useful. Furthermore, you gain the ability to use > already existing libraries. This applies to C, as well. > > > [...] > > > So, again, syntax is not by itself an essential feature of the language. > > I rate the "human factor" important enough to consider it as an > > essential feature for programming languages meant to be used by > > humans. > > Well, yes, but this can be studied to great extent without the drawbacks > of creating incompatibility boundaries, see above. Yeah, for instance by compiling to C :) This is for instance the path chosen by GHC (although they are switching over to a C-- backend). > > Of course, if you decide to use S-expressions primarily as a compiler > > target that's an entirely different issue (to bad that this path > > hasn't been explored that much, besides maybe Dylan). > > That's how it's supposed to be. But that is not what it *is* like in > 95% of "the Lisp world". See my last mail - the typical Lisper seldomly/never "escapes" S expressions, and I strongly believe this is not because S expressions are the "best" syntax. Michael