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 2FFCCBC48 for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 14:00:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts5.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.25]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j35C07wN019741 for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 14:00:07 +0200 Received: from nagash.wacky ([65.95.130.167]) by tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.10 201-253-122-130-110-20040306) with ESMTP id <20050405120006.OMTG26128.tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net@nagash.wacky> for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 08:00:06 -0400 To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: some comments on ocaml{lex,yacc} from a novice's POV References: <49464.202.164.198.46.1112355123.squirrel@www.ivorykite.com> <51945.202.164.198.46.1112586123.squirrel@www.ivorykite.com> <20050404154408.16534457.ocaml-erikd@mega-nerd.com> <200504041051.07270.jon@ffconsultancy.com> From: Geoff Wozniak Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 08:00:04 -0400 Message-ID: <87mzsdv3gb.fsf@nagash.wacky> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 42527DC7.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ocaml:01 statically:01 statically:01 wrote:01 writes:01 typing:01 lex:01 types:02 strong:96 programming:03 static:03 static:03 erik:04 problem:05 X-Attachments: type="application/pgp-signature" 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=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jon Harrop writes: > On Monday 04 April 2005 06:44, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: >> On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 13:42:03 +1000 (EST) >> > isn't that nice?!? >> >> Yes. > > Not if it isn't statically checked. > I take issue with this statement, not because of some personal vendetta, but because it dismisses some very useful tools. When I am developing software, I often find that at the beginning, static typing is a burden that I would rather not be bothered with for the simple reason that I don't know what types are to be used. Later in development, once I know more about my problem space, I will migrate to using some language that uses a static (preferably strong) type system. Saying some programming tool isn't nice because it isn't "statically checked" is short-sighted and I'd rather not see a novice come away with the impression that if a language/tool is not statically checked, it's somehow inferior. =2D-=20 Geoff Wozniak --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBCUn3E+nqGMR5VMhkRAlQBAJ92mraAVWPkD/6mLx8FAnwfqxch1ACfXlHf 5bgnM1FEmm5O8t+D30RVLQk= =Fgef -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--