The Anti-Human Consequences of Static Typing

Re:The Anti-Human Consequences of Static Typing by Kliment on Monday August 12, 2013 @04:32PM (#6201616)

Are there any languages that have a type mismatch warning rather than a type mismatch error? Something like how gcc warns about incompatible pointer types when compiling C programs, but lets you use them if you insist, but for all types?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Anti-Human Consequences of Static Typing by jeapostrophe on Monday August 12, 2013 @04:33PM (#6201632)

I suggest reading about progressive types:

http://blog.brownplt.org/2012/09/01/progressive-types.html

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Anti-Human Consequences of Static Typing by Kliment on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @03:43AM (#6204473)

Wow, thank you, that is exactly what I had in mind

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Anti-Human Consequences of Static Typing by strager on Monday August 12, 2013 @07:05PM (#6202809)

GHC (a Haskell compiler) can defer type errors until runtime:

http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/DeferErrorsToRuntime

http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/7.6.1/html/users_guide/defer...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Anti-Human Consequences of Static Typing by enupten on Monday August 12, 2013 @05:32PM (#6202154)

A few implementations of Common-Lisp (like SBCL) do this already (not surprisingly), and I find it very useful to compile misbehaving programs (and having not being segfaulted upon). Once you verify function behavior with a bunch of test cases, you declare types everywhere in the code and set the compiler optimization to full.

[ Parent | on HN ]