RAD vs. performance
- From: Yet Another Dan <goofball@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 20:54:38 +0000 (UTC)
I've been studying the typing wars and RAD vs. performance debate for a
while, and the only language I've found so far that bridges the gap is
Lisp, at least Common Lisp. My impression is that a dynamically typed
interpreter is good for RAD, and a statically typed compiler generates good
performance. CL can be either interpreted or compiled, and is dynamically
typed but has static "advisory" typing for final optimization.
Is there any other language that does something like that? Switches
between interpreting and compiling, and between dynamic and static typing?
Is Lisp the only language with adjustabe typing and execution?
--
YAD
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: RAD vs. performance
- From: Peter Olcott
- Re: RAD vs. performance
- From: Curtis W
- Re: RAD vs. performance
- From: Jon Harrop
- Re: RAD vs. performance
- From: cr88192
- Re: RAD vs. performance
- From: Robbert Haarman
- Re: RAD vs. performance
- Prev by Date: Re: implicit definitions
- Next by Date: Re: RAD vs. performance
- Previous by thread: Re: implicit definitions
- Next by thread: Re: RAD vs. performance
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|