On 17/04/2009 22:54, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Yigal Chripun"<yigal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gsam1p$1ut...@digitalmars.com...
On 17/04/2009 21:58, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
btw, I'm not trying to convince you that dynamic typing is necessary
always a better solution. What I'm saying is that I agree with Andrei - we
need to be open minded and have as many useful tools as possible in our
programmer toolbox. The important thing is to choose the right tool for
the job.
Typically, yes, having "as many useful tools as possible in our programmer
toolbox" is great. But with opDotExp, that's not the whole story. What
opDotExp is, is a tool of only occasional use that provides only a small
benefit, *and* ends up destroying a much more important tool: compile-time
checking on a class's members.
Yea, sure I want more tools in my programmer tool box. But I don't want a
minor one that's going to mess up one of my major ones just by being in
there.
I was talking generally about dynamic vs. static typing and didn't
address the specific implementation of opDotExp.
It's just that I wanted to reply to the posts that argued against
dynamic typing altogether.
