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 typing is better
than dynamic... for low-level yes, but then you would probably be using
C or assembler anyway.
In fact, I think this was one of the (many) mistakes of C# "design".
But that's a prejudiced opinion; I just looked at tutorials and example
code, and turned away in disgust. Maybe it's better if you actually use
it a bit. (I know Python's indentation takes some getting used to...
and smalltalk's/objC's keyword args.
One funny thing is that it's not hard to beat C++ into dynamic typing.
Your typical VOS application is at least partially dynamic typed.
Although in my dream world, the dream language uses neither kind... it
uses "interface typing" exclusively. But I don't know a language that
works like that in the real world :-)
And so says Hugh Perkins on 13/03/06 11:03...
> Yes, you're right, for many applications weak typing is better, because
> it produces more compact, easier to read code.
So many of our dreams at first seem impossible,
then they seem improbable, and then, when we
summon the will, they soon become inevitable.
GNU: never give up freedom http://www.gnu.org/
vos-d mailing list