I would be more impressed if this did not involve "implicitly statically typed" code as surely one of the joys of high level programming is not having to use implicit typing. However I can totally see the point of prototyping and then adding in the typing and running it through something like this.
You don't have to specify the types of variables. They get inferred automatically. You only have to ensure that each variable has one definite type, i.e. it doesn't change its type throughout the program.
oops - I totally glazed over what "implicit" meant. With my understanding corrected this is 20x cooler!
> You only have to ensure that each variable has one definite type, i.e. it doesn't change its type throughout the program.
Yetch.
Interested parties should also check out pyrex, Python2C, and pysco.
unfortunately, Psyco hasn't been ported to 64-bit. The web page says something about working with pypy.
The idea of a Python-like statically typed language is good.
Unless you have a decent type system like Haskell's, statically typed languages are nothing but an unnecessary burden. I am a huge fan of python, and dynamic typing in general... Haskell was the first experience with a language that made me appreciate the power of a type system in certain situations. Every other implementation I've used has been broken.