-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I started writing a long post about this, and deleted it because I don't
want to wade too far into this flame war. I'd just like to point out
that, ultimately, language design is a trade-off.
If you are using a runtime-typed language, you are gam
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 07:14:12PM +0800, Hugh Perkins wrote:
> Lalo,
>
> What are your thoughts on Duck Typing? http://boo.codehaus.org/Duck+Typing
Isn't this mostly the same as message-passing object oriented systems
(Smalltalk, etc.)
Reed
___
vos-
Lalo,
What are your thoughts on Duck Typing? http://boo.codehaus.org/Duck+Typing
___
vos-d mailing list
vos-d@interreality.org
http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
Hi Lalo,
Yes, you're right that dynamic typing is very cool.
I guess the thing that I find tricky in Python is that it is possible to accidentally add unintended properties to a class by misspelling the intended one, and sometimes it's tricky to catch this. For example (my Python syntax might
Basic, javascript and a few others have weak typing.
Python, Lisp, Perl, Ruby, Smalltalk and a few others have dynamic
typing. Which is very different. (Although Perl's case is, like
everything else when Perl is in the sentence, arguable.)
I can't fathom a case of high-level code where strong t
