Neil Mix nmix at pandora.com
Thu Aug 14 06:25:57 PDT 2008

On Aug 13, 2008, at 11:44 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:

> I've written that interoperation problems could result if different  
> browsers used different degrees of conservatism and partial  
> evaluation, but I don't expect static checker extensions in most  
> browsers, and I'm also not too worried about people testing in the  
> more lenient one where the stricter one has enough market share for  
> the interop failure to be a problem. The issue will be what works in  
> browsers with their dynamic type checking (whatever it ends up being).

I think my lack of PLT background is seeping through here, so I'll  
clarify a bit.  It sounds like static type checking infers a certain  
amount of "hard failure," i.e. you can't run this until you fix your  
code.  That's not really what I'm voting for.  I just want it to be  
possible, somehow, to catch simple type errors very early in the  
development process, and then to run the same type annotated code  
unchanged in the browser.  To that end an offline lint-like tool would  
suffice.  If type-annotated ES-Harmony is capable of supporting that,  
I'll be satisfied.  I'm not a member of the "our language knows what's  
best for you" camp.  I just want another tool for my tool belt, to use  
judiciously for my own purposes without impacting others.

More information about the Es-discuss mailing list