Re: Build language with weak typing, then add scaffolding later to strengthen it?

["Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org>]

On 5/22/2015 2:42 AM, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> On 21.05.15 21:11, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>
>> In Ada, none of this is needed,
>
> This claim may be a little bold. Even thinking from "inside" Ada.
>

It is all relative ofcourse. What I meant is that when
I get clean compile from Ada (after some struggle), I feel
much more safe that I did not overlook some basic typing
conflict or some other silly mistake which should be
detected by the compiler  which can result in hard
to detect errors later on at run-time.

In this sense, Ada does not need all the scaffolding (lint,
compiler flags, type hints, etc.. to make it more robust, it
is build into  the language. That is what I mean.

Ofcourse, one can still make logic/algorithmic errors in any language.

> For example, the recently introduced aspects of types show how
> "strong" Ada types really are, that is, how expressive the Ada
> type system really has been.
>
> Actually, the effort that has produced Ada may have spurred
> an idea of how not to design a language. Obviously, for all
> willing to see it that way, it was a big failure, C having
> taken its place in embedded systems. While the greed, and the
> opportunism associated with its design situation are on record,
> still, obviously, the socioeconomic failure carries over to the
> qualities of the design process. Right?
>
> Who would want to do that again?
>
>
>> So, why do language designers design computer languages with weak
>> typing, and then spend so much effort later on to fixing the
>> weak typing? Is it because it is easier to design a language with
>> weak typing than strong one?
>
> Are you sure there ware professional language designers around when
> these languages were defined?
>
> Maybe now, within Microsoft's X# set. Maybe around Scala. Maybe
> atETH Zürich.
>
> But with other "designs", it seems that a language is just inspired
> by what its creators happen to have learned. (Which, sometimes,
> is type inference in ML.) Designing something better, more inclusively,
> requires voluntary co-operation of competitors in industry…
> It requires deviating from just having grads do something™ in their
> spare time and let The Market do the rest.
> Is anything being done, language-wise, by industry? Or are their needs
> taken care of (nominally) by the existing language vendors instead?
>
> Certainly, an ad hoc language like JavaScript, created by young grads,
> was pushed by popularity, the drivers being from the sales department;
> that's on record. Once the language is out the door, having gained some
> traction, it would take someone bold to replace it with something
> much better. So, not sales staff. Once the language is out, no one
> takes any risks, the business is established.
>
> So, instead, PHP, C, Fortran etc. get all bells and whistles that you can
> get for money (sic), by hiring compiler makers who need employment anyway.
> Hence, for example, the Hack language and HHVM, were motivated and
> financed by Facebook; this should keep PHP in place.
>
> Thus our collective boldness (none) makes crappy languages stay.
> The improved compilers help saving one's face.
> Good.
>

--Nasser