Re: Pointers to "why C behaves like that ?"

Nicola Musatti <Nicola.Musatti@objectway.it> wrote:
+ thp@cs.ucr.edu wrote:
+> Nicola Musatti <nicola.musatti@objectway.it> wrote:
+ [...]
+> It may be possible to have our cake and eat it too -- most of it,
+> anyway. To accomodate generic programming, C++ must do a lot of type
+> inference, especially in the case of function templates, whose type
+> parameters are statically inferred from the types of the arguments.
+> And, it's clear that C++ could do a lot more type inferencing without
+> giving up any of its relatively strong static typing. Now consider a
+> Python compiler that behaves somewhat like a C++ as long as it can
+> statically infer types and that generates warnings and less efficient
+> code when it can't. A lanuage designed for static typing with dynamic
+> fallback could perhaps be useful both as a scripting language and as a
+> language for the development of multi-megaline software systems.
+
+ I see more promise in the kind of two level system that languages such
+ as Python already are: a very high, level dynamically typed language
+ built on top of a lower level statically typed language. What I
+ contend is that C++ would make a much better lower level than C.


I've heard that there are Python compilers. I'm curious to what
extent they attempt to infer types at compile time, and how successful
those attempts might be.


Tom Payne

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.