Subject: Re: Static/Strong/Implicit Typing From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 24 Jan 2004 10:13:49 +0000 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <3283928029360327KL2065E@naggum.no> * sajiimori | If there were a statically, implicitly typed Lisp, would you use it? Common Lisp is already statically, implicitly typed. All objects are of type T, and this is very rigourously enforced. | What qualities of dynamic typing would you miss? You may have noticed that every language worth using these days has (added) an object system that carries type information in the objects. You appear to want to take a step backwards in this respect. Why? -- Erik Naggum | Oslo, Norway Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.