[boston-lisp-organizers] Re: query re: the boston lisp meetings/conferences

[Faré]

I can wait for the topic, as long as I can announce it one month in advance.

That said, I'm not certain what you mean by gradual type checking. If
it's the same as the "soft typing" of Chez Scheme or CMUCL/SBCL, i.e.
"statically typed if you can prove it, fall back to dynamic if you
can't", then I kind of have the feeling that the general principle is
already well understood by the community -- unless you're going to
talk specifically about a cool advanced analysis technique, such as
those produced by Olin Shivers and his students. That could make a
nice 50' or longer talk, but it's a hard thing to talk about.

CheneyMTA could make a cool 25' talk, or a nice 50' one if given
deeper background or compared to other techniques.

BTW, after talking to potential people, I've decided that the talk
formats would be better 50'+Q&A for normal, 25'+Q&A for short, and
90'+Q&A for long. Indeed, 50'+Q&A seems to be the standard length for
which those participating in academic conferences have already
prepared speeches or for which they will be able to reuse new
speeches.

[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
Politicians are like rats. What they steal for themselves is minuscule
compared to what they destroy getting it.



On 23/03/2008, Elf <elf at ephemeral.net> wrote:
>
>  question about my talk for the LUG.  do you need a topic right now or can it
>  wait?  we're starting to look into something really kinda cool (gradual
>  type checking - static/dynamic hybrid) so i may want to talk on that instead
>  of (or in addition to) cheneymta, or i can give two separate talks if youd
>  like?  we're doing some interesting redesigns in the chicken world right now
>  so theres lots of fun theoretical things to talk about.