Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

There's no reason to believe that you can't freely mix implicit type disciplines in "statically typed" languages, either!

It's just (a) oftentimes you can actually reify those implicit schemes into actual types and it's often worth the cost to do so and (b) if your compiler depends upon a choice of type semantics in order to function and your implicit system is inconsistent with that selected type semantics then your analysis may not guarantee compilation!

But again: dynamic types are a mode of use of static types.

---

To be clear, this is the brunt of Bob's response in the linked thread anyway.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: