Ryan Gahl wrote: > Maybe, Michael. I've had to deal with all of them though. I've never > seen an implementation I liked
Ah, so bad implementations == bad language ? > (have yet to see code separation). Just for the record, in Perl it's usually Template Toolkit, or HTML::Template (Mason can do it, but generally encourages mixing). > Not > sure what you mean by dynamic though. You mean interpreted? Non type-safe? Actually, I like the wikipedia definition: a dynamic programming language is a kind of programming language in which programs can change their structure as they run: functions may be introduced or removed, new classes of objects may be created, new modules may appear. As a side effect of this dynamism, most dynamic programming languages are dynamically typed, which static typing advocates consider a drawback (see also static typing). According to advocates of dynamic programming languages, however, the flexibility of dynamic languages offsets these drawbacks, and even provides advantages so considerable as to make this an essential feature And with new research being done into type-inferencing (see perl6) this "limitation" may not exist for much longer. If you want type-safety you can have it, if you don't it won't get in your way. -- Michael Peters Developer Plus Three, LP _______________________________________________ Rails-spinoffs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-spinoffs
