Just put me in the "static typing advocates" camp and let's move on.
:-)
It's all preference, it's all opinion, sure I speak out from time to time... just wish I had some friends here to back ME up :-) No one shares my POV?
Ok, I surrender...
On 5/26/06, Michael Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ Rails-spinoffs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-spinoffs
