"If the claim is that static programming is superior to dynamic, I take issue."
I think this would benefit from a little more clarity about what you mean when you say "static programming" versus "dynamic programming" - I'm sure you don't mean "Dynamic Programming".
If you mean static types, then I think that they are a tremendous win wherever they apply, and I think that sufficiently sophisticated type systems exist that they can apply most places. Trying to express meaningful constraints in a brain dead type system is awkward and you wind up moving between over- and under-constraining yourself - though I've been surprised at what I can express in C (with zero runtime overhead) with a little creativity.
If "static programming" is taken to mean "compiled, with runtime compilation of additional code made difficult to impossible", which often correlates with "statically typed" in existing languages but is technologically orthogonal, then I agree that this kind of "static programming" is not uniformly superior.
Yeah, apologies. I did not mean "dynamic programming." I thought the context made what I meant fairly clear, though.
If you have any examples that show how this is technically orthogonal, I'm all ears. Hence my request for examples of things that are as extensible as emacs.
And to be clear, my understanding is that ghc is actually fairly extensible. I would love if there were more examples. Preferably in more approachable domains than compilers.
'Yeah, apologies. I did not mean "dynamic programming." I thought the context made what I meant fairly clear, though.'
No worries - as I said, I'd understood that didn't mean "dynamic programming".
"If you have any examples that show how this is technically orthogonal, I'm all ears. Hence my request for examples of things that are as extensible as emacs."
Well, Typed Racket would presumably be one example. More generally, as a theoretical proof, one could bundle the entire compiler into the runtime and link in arbitrary new code.
"And to be clear, my understanding is that ghc is actually fairly extensible. I would love if there were more examples. Preferably in more approachable domains than compilers."
I'm not aware of it being exceptionally easy to write plugins for GHC compared to other compilers - it has incorporated a lot of extensions to the Haskell language but that's not the same as a plugin ecosystem (which might itself exist - just "I'm not aware"). It certainly has a plugin interface, but so does GCC. As GHC it itself implemented in Haskell, a lot of pieces of it are also available as libraries.
I think this would benefit from a little more clarity about what you mean when you say "static programming" versus "dynamic programming" - I'm sure you don't mean "Dynamic Programming".
If you mean static types, then I think that they are a tremendous win wherever they apply, and I think that sufficiently sophisticated type systems exist that they can apply most places. Trying to express meaningful constraints in a brain dead type system is awkward and you wind up moving between over- and under-constraining yourself - though I've been surprised at what I can express in C (with zero runtime overhead) with a little creativity.
If "static programming" is taken to mean "compiled, with runtime compilation of additional code made difficult to impossible", which often correlates with "statically typed" in existing languages but is technologically orthogonal, then I agree that this kind of "static programming" is not uniformly superior.