On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Andrew Wiley <debio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Bruno Medeiros > <brunodomedeiros+s...@com.gmail> wrote: > >> On 11/11/2010 14:19, Bruno Medeiros wrote: >> >>> way in the future. I think dynamic languages are somewhat of a niche >>> (even if a growing one), but not really heading to be mainstream in >>> medium/large scale projects. >>> >> >> Sorry, I actually meant "I think dynamic _typing_ is somewhat of a niche" >> rather than the above. Yes, the two are closely related, but they are not >> the same. >> For example, I wouldn't be surprised if in the future certain >> dynamically-typed languages gain some static-typing capabilities. (like the >> inverse is happening) >> >> > From reading about this, it seems like what D has is very similar to what > Scala calls "Structural Typing" (see > http://codemonkeyism.com/scala-goodness-structural-typing/). The > difference is that Scala tends to use structural typing with inline type > declarations (although they don't have to be inline). However, the basic > concept is the same, where a class is dynamically checked for compliance > with a static type. Not quite dynamic typing, but definitely related. > If you're after a more accurate description, how would that work? > > Andrew Wiley > Actually, that's wrong, as the class is statically checked for compliance with a static type, but still.
