> > > The best explanation of these misunderstandings I've come across is "What > to Know Before Debating Type Systems": > > http://cdsmith.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/an-old-article-i-wrote/ > > I have learned quite a lot from reading this article and following this discussion, particularly that "type" and "type checking" is much more nuanced and complex than I have understood until now, and that the terms "static" and "dynamic" expand into a much larger range of issues upon close examination, such as the difference between explicitly declaring types (as in Java) and implicitly inferring types from code context. Quoting from the article:
*Many programmers approach the question of whether they prefer static or dynamic types by comparing some languages they know that use both techniques. This is a reasonable approach to most questions of preference. The problem, in this case, is that most programmers have limited experience, and haven’t tried a lot of languages. For context, here, six or seven doesn't count as “a lot.”* * * So I can say I prefer dynamic typing, but the reasons are more personal, and molded by my development experience. -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
