> I suppose this dovetails with my preference for static types with optional dynamic behaviour, and not the contrary default which seems to be your position.
I do like that in general. If I could wave a magic wand and create a language to fit my personal desires, it would be statically typed.
But when I sat down to create Wren, I had to modulate that by what I was capable of. I figured I had the time and skill to pull off a small bytecode-interpreted, embeddable dynamically typed language, I and thought there might be room in the world of languages for it to find a niche as that.
> That would be enough for a decent speedup on most programs.
I'm not currently planning to use static analysis to affect the runtime behavior since I think that would add a bunch of complexity to the VM. I was thinking more about it in terms of finding bugs and code navigation.
I do like that in general. If I could wave a magic wand and create a language to fit my personal desires, it would be statically typed.
But when I sat down to create Wren, I had to modulate that by what I was capable of. I figured I had the time and skill to pull off a small bytecode-interpreted, embeddable dynamically typed language, I and thought there might be room in the world of languages for it to find a niche as that.
> That would be enough for a decent speedup on most programs.
I'm not currently planning to use static analysis to affect the runtime behavior since I think that would add a bunch of complexity to the VM. I was thinking more about it in terms of finding bugs and code navigation.