> Nowadays most compilers are multi-pass and have a separate symbol resolution stage that operates on an in-memory representation of the code (e.g. AST). It's not a huge extra cost to search for symbols "in both directions".
That's true, but treating all top-level declarations as occupying the same unordered namespace means that a change in any module can require a large amount of non-local recompilation, which makes incrementality more difficult.
> Personally I think the right way for procedural languages is to require explicit function signatures.
Even then, you still spend a lot of time doing inference inside the bodies of functions. Once you mix in inferring parameter types for lambdas, inferring generic type arguments, overload resolution, and maybe implicit conversions, there is a lot going on.
That's true, but treating all top-level declarations as occupying the same unordered namespace means that a change in any module can require a large amount of non-local recompilation, which makes incrementality more difficult.
> Personally I think the right way for procedural languages is to require explicit function signatures.
Even then, you still spend a lot of time doing inference inside the bodies of functions. Once you mix in inferring parameter types for lambdas, inferring generic type arguments, overload resolution, and maybe implicit conversions, there is a lot going on.