cognitive psychology. PhD 
“Dynamically typed languages have one static type” is - formally true - boring once you understand it - but the process of understanding it is useful - not a good argument against dynamic typing - PL’s version of “is an X a sandwich?”
Something I haven’t seen addressed — aren’t statically typed languages unityped, but in the metalanguage? We define type structure via context free grammars, which are de facto recursive sum types.
-
-
I think you're confusing two separate issues. We also use CFGs to define the term grammar, so that on its own doesn't imply unitypedness. Some (but not all) statically typed languages *are* unikinded, though -- kinds being to types what types are to terms.
-
Ah, I was misreading the parent comment as s/type structure/term structure/. Like, I think it's funny how I'm making this dependently typed language, but hidden inside is this dynamically typed interpreter.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Unless you use some sort of well-typed AST I guess? Granted you seem to be limited to a certain level of expressiveness. It starts off easy with simple types, but then gets tricky fast as you attempt to approach the expressiveness of the metalanguage.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.