Bradford Hull

> I respect the fact that strict type control will allow for much better 
> optimization, but I want badly to be able to explore the non-type-safe 
> world a while and see if there are remarkable insights one can come to 
> in this new territory.  Please, if you do add type-checking and 
> constraints, make sure not to let them prohibit using the language with 
> its current SmallTalkish freedom.
> Let them be positively applied options, not default restrictions I have 
> to fight
> my way past yet again.  A programmer can supply their own type-safety 
> when they want to already.

Have you really read my postings?
It seems you don't recognize my appreciation of flexibility and 
genericness. I would not give them up.

My only point was that for some runtime-critical parts (about 1-10% of the
code) it would make sense to allowing OPTIONAL type-restrictions in order 
to make life easier for a possible optimizer in future.

Please check out my postings 151150 and 151160 also...

Best regards, Christian