[chuck-users] feature ideas
ge at ccrma.Stanford.EDU
Sun Jun 22 01:27:30 EDT 2008
>> Or ChucK could drop these data type shenanigans entirely. Really, who's
> Well, I didn't want to come right out and say it, but dynamic typing
> seemed like a no-brainer for a livecoding language.
Definitely relevant points, and certainly have been considered, and as
with many things, we are continuing to evaluate different possibilities,
including when/how dynamic typing is beneficial for a language like ChucK
(I don't think either static or dynamic is the better solution all across
In terms of on-the-fly proramming, and not necessarily taking a
particular stance on various shades of typing dynamism, one can make an
argument that having static typing in many cases can facilitate aspects
of live coding, as different semantic/syntactic contracts between the
programming language and programmer present different "cognitive loads"
when writing code. I'd say it depends on the nature of the thing being
live coded, and I think we can find cases that would benefit from static
and from dynamic typing. Finding a balance would be a totally rad area of
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Tom Lieber <lieber at princeton.edu> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Kassen <signal.automatique at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think this is to prevent worse issues. If you'd change your class's
>>> member-function return types that would lead to serious issues with other
>>> code that was already compiled using those. I think this matter is affected
>>> by many (if not all?)of the issues affecting the updating of running code.
>> Or ChucK could drop these data type shenanigans entirely. Really,
>> who's benefiting?
>> Also, my small hacking skills, yada-yada. :)
>> Tom Lieber
>> chuck-users mailing list
>> chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
More information about the chuck-users