From: Eero Saynatkari <ruby-ml@...>
Date: 2005-12-11T12:29:00+09:00
Subject: Re: lib for optional static typing

On 2005.12.11 09:21, Jakub Hegenbart <kyosuke@seznam.cz> wrote:
> Christian Neukirchen wrote:
> > Oh, but the time it actually needs to compile and the megabytes of C
> > it generates... not worth in the general case, IMO.
> >
> > And Stalin code still is far not as run-time dynamic as Ruby.  (Which
> > is the real problem.  We should have something like "eval-on-compile".)
> >   
> Well, that's the "static language implementation" part. :-D You cold 
> treat it as a compiler of a dynamic language into a fast static form, 
> which is something the docs say anyway:
> 
> "It is designed to be used not as a development tool but rather as a 
> means to generate efficient
> executable images either for application delivery or for production 
> research runs. "
> 
> It's worth in the final case, not in the general one. ;-)

Eivind Eklund had some good ideas regarding type inference loosely
based on the implementations of the self language. Essentially, most
of the goodness of static typing for the compiler/interpreter and none
of the terrible and useless burden of static typing for the programmer.

You may have some luck scouring the archives for his messages.

> Jakub

E