[chuck-users] feature ideas

[Ge Wang]

>> Or ChucK could drop these data type shenanigans entirely. Really, who's 
>> benefiting?
>
> 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 
the board).

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 
future investigations.

Best,
Ge!

> 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
>> http://AllTom.com/
>> _______________________________________________
>> chuck-users mailing list
>> chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
>> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
>>
>
>
>
>