News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Dynamically Typed Languages (2009). Parent comment

Re:Dynamically Typed Languages (2009) by groovy2shoes on Thursday August 21, 2014 @07:36PM (#8210236)
Can you elaborate a bit on what the benefits of embracing that calculus are? Or maybe provide some pointers? I'm having trouble imagining what utility there is in treating untyped languages as (uni)typed. I said in another comment that it's pretty much a useless notion, but I'm genuinely curious if I'm overlooking something.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Dynamically Typed Languages (2009) by tel on Thursday August 21, 2014 @07:53PM (#8210311)
Probably the best one I can think of is that it gives you a natural way of looking at gradual typing. Doing gradual typing well is still tough, but you can see it as an obvious consequence of the unityping argument.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Dynamically Typed Languages (2009) by groovy2shoes on Thursday August 21, 2014 @08:09PM (#8210347)
I see. Looks like I have some reading to do :) Thanks.
[ Parent | on HN ]