[Grace-core] Should Grace abandon "gradual typing" for "like typing"?

[Kim Bruce]

Let's not rush into anything just yet. What we have now is OK, but needs
more work. I'd like to have a good static type system & then see if we can
blend it nicely with the dynamic. I'm getting the feeling that contracts &
blame may be too much, for minimal benefit, but I won't be able to think
about this for at least 10 days.
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 5:10 PM Andrew P. Black <black at cs.pdx.edu> wrote:

>
> On 27 Jul 2016, at 7:05, James Noble <kjx at ecs.vuw.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> I think I'm proposing that we don't investigate any of the more fancy
> sound, blame-carrying, etc gradual typing proposals and rather just stick
> with the
> existing semantcs --- and point people to Thorn if anyone complains.
>
> Declare victory and move on, in other words - in particular to seeing how
> we can ensure adding more types doesn't make a program slower.
>
>
> To me, those two things seem to contradict each other.
>
> My take on gradual typing — coming form the dynamic typing end rather than
> the static typing end — is that it’s *all about* figuring out how to
> ensure that adding more types does not slow down the program.   I think
> that Jeremy would say this differently — he’s looking at how to introduce
> the *minimal *number of type checks when adding type Unknown to  an
> otherwise statically-typed program.   But I think that it amounts to the
> same thing.
>
> Andrew
>
> _______________________________________________
> Grace-core mailing list
> Grace-core at cecs.pdx.edu
> https://mailhost.cecs.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/grace-core
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailhost.cecs.pdx.edu/pipermail/grace-core/attachments/20160727/0f0faf19/attachment.html>