On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> wrote: > But as soon as a statically typed language supports type inference, I'm > really not convinced that it has more boiler plate than a dynamically typed > language (obviously, type annotations don't count as "boiler plate", we're > talking about things such as "List l = new ArrayList()").
Type annotations certainly count. Hell, anything that is "just a standard part of a program and has to be present" counts. As an example, setting up the tables and such in squeryl is something I feel safe calling boilerplate. ActiveRecord showed many in the world that you could have done that through reflection on a table. Are there advantages to having that boilerplate? Of course there are. Doesn't mean it isn't boilerplate. (That is, you can't eliminate all boilerplate, by nature of the definition of boilerplate. It isn't that java has any boilerplate that annoys so many, it is that it has so much boilerplate.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
