Subject: Re: Newbie questions [Followup to comp.lang.lisp]
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 1999/05/07
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Joachim Achtzehnter <>
| In contrast, the Lisp community, if this newsgroup is any indication,
| seems to totally discount the value of static typing.

  that's funny -- I read it exactly that opposite way.  Lispers care about
  typing, including static type information, and because they care, they
  know what kind of costs are involved in them relative to the benefits and
  why the C++ model is so fundamentally braindamaged as to become totally
  unpalatable and useless.  _because_ we value static type information, but
  also know the costs, we have decided against anal-retentive tools, but
  would use tools that can utilize such information productively.  however,
  the kinds of mistakes that you seem to think are so important do not in
  fact occur often enough to be a significant problem, so the value would
  lie in optimization across function calls.  this is dangerous territory
  in an environment where you can change function definitions dynamically.