So (through gritted teeth) static typing has some uses.

But we don't always have it.

What if it were optional?


But the real question is why is Guido thinking this way? Has he discovered or experienced something that makes StaticTyping attractive?

Thoughts ...

(well, before I read these.)

  • The nearest thing I've experienced to optional static typing is VisualBasic. And lo and behold, in SdiDesk I pretty much did declare the types of my variables. Out of habit.

Perl 6 is going to have some optional typing too.


Common Lisp has it too. But in all implementations I know, it's really just for performance, not rejecting programs which fail to live up to some static standard. Rejecting these programs is perfectly allowable in the standard (as I remember), but it never caught on; not a high priority as other things so far. Maybe one day.

And there's probably some static typing library someone hacked together, floating around the net.

Tayssir John Gabbour

Compare :

See also :