Bill Baxter wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Don <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:18 AM, Lutger <lutger.blijdest...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
The feature isn't very dynamic since the dispatch rules are defined
statically. The only thing you can do is rewire the associative
I don't get it, what if WhatTypeToPutHere does a dynamic lookup, then
it's
pretty much the same a Javascript isn't it? Except that everything in
Javascript does dynamic lookup and in D you are restricted to types that
have this dynamic lookup (which, pending a phobos solution you have to
code
yourself). Do you mean to say this 'except' is the obstacle somehow?
How is that less dynamic? You would be able to call or even redefine at
runtime, for example, signals defined in xml files used to build gui
components.
It is a bit less dynamic because in D it's all done with templates.
It's a helluva lot more dynamic in D because it can do code generation on
request. The "dynamic" bit in Javascript is really an AA lookup, +
reflection.
But that's code generation /at compile time/.
You can call that "more dynamic" if you like, but it seems to fall
more in the realm of what is considered "static" to me.
Doesn't mean it's not really useful, but calling it dynamic seems to
be stretching the traditional definition a bit too far.
--bb
Yeah, it's all about naming. The thing is, the traditional "dynamic"
isn't very dynamic. You can't *really* add new functions at run-time.
They all exist in the source code, all you're doing is manipulating
function pointers, and the dynamic thing is just syntax sugar for that.
If you have a language with a built-in compiler or interpreter, it can
be truly dynamic, but I don't think that's the normal use of the term.
