Pascal vs C

If you were to give a language like Python static typing and make it a compiled language instead of interpreted, you basically end up with something like Pascal. So how would you rate Pascal's abilities compared to C? I know dynamic typing requires runtime checking, but would it be possible to have dynamic typing in a compiled language like Pascal?

>>16
And it has a big fat runtime to deal with the fact that the underlying machine isn't LISP.
That's not true.

>>16
There's lisps with fairly tiny runtimes, and some with bigger runtimes(1-2MB on the smaller ones, up to 40MB on the larger ones). You should look into what is contained in those runtimes before you say they're big - they tend to contain a lot of things(such as the entire compiler/implementation, many useful libraries and so on), and if you wanted, you could remove what you don't need, or treeshake the image to reduce the size considerably. Running in a special-purpose VM, a real Lisp CPU or a JIT won't really make things that much better. Symbolics' Lisp Machines are actually considerably slower than having them emulated (emulating the Alpha port on x86_64). What those CPUs had going for them was the register size and tag bits which were natively part of the pointer, but aside from that, there's nothing wrong with how Lisps are done on modern machines (they still usually have the tag bits in the pointer, which may cost you precious address space in some implementations - this isn't really a problem on x86 64 of course).