-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 04/13/2015 03:15 PM, James K. Lowden wrote: > I beg to differ, Roger.
Note that I deliberately said "some" and not "all". Everyone has their reasons, and not everyone has the same reason. > The programming language of choice doesn't affect the correctness > of a function. I didn't mention compilers, nor are they relevant. I am generalising to a mindset, where those that use a static type system as implemented in various popular languages, tend to lean more heavily on that type system and its rigidity, hence expecting the same thing from their data, hence being concerned about schemas etc. And those using dynamic type systems as implemented in various popular languages can favour that same dynamism in their data, where these schema proposals aren't particularly helpful. Dynamic data is harder to deal with in static type systems. > I think you know better. When you write a program, you *have* > decided "in advance" (of running it) "exactly what you will do" > with the data. I mean things like you can just put a single value in that you may look at later, and then later figure out if a single value or a list of values is better. Or make it an object (in the JSON sense) or a list of them. Dynamic type systems make it far easier to deal with this, to change your mind later, and to deal with mixtures of different types in the data. Roger -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlUsYzsACgkQmOOfHg372QT0dgCgkSSIlby2WGzFlDw+fxSy8LAe EwwAnjTNpX5PQ65HHweaSAH0Pv+vBUGV =6lK3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
