| > "You can write a compiler in a weakly typed language that resembles a compiler in a strongly typed language." Happy now? Sure, that's a better claim. > The point, which you have ignored, is that there are strongly typed languages where the features you're relying on are not present. There sure are! I don't think I was ever trying to say otherwise. > In fact, this is true of a bunch of the compilers that are among the most widely used in the world--ones that people are using to build projects written in C and C++ and things like the language support baked into IDEs for Java, C#, etc. Sorry, I'm having trouble parsing this. Are you referring to compilers of C/C++ here, or compilers written in those languages? The architectures of compilers I've worked with that were built in C++ were specifically on my mind when I wrote my comment. > And let's be real, the original comment... was no more than a drive-by insult. I think you're maybe reading too much into me here? I didn't write that comment you're referring to. I responded very narrowly to a claim in the light of a common misconception about how type systems factor into software architecture (namely, that they're don't do anything as long as your code is "correct"). I'm picking up a lot of hostility that I don't think I've earned. |