> Another red herring: you are describing a disadvantage of nominal over > structural typing. Not dynamic vs static typing.
there are probably several different arguments being conflated in such discussions. for example, theory vs. practice: there is the theory of what in fact are the options for typing, and then there is the practice of what programming languages currently exist, and what of all those options do they implement. so if there is not a popular "statically typed" language which does "duck typing", and most people are only aware of "statically typed" languages that don't, then that practice can easily lead one to be confused into saying the theory of statically typed languages don't work because they don't support "duck typing". or statements made can be mistakenly inferred to be talking about the theory when they are really talking about the practice. in other words, what "statically typed" language do proponents of such languages hold up as the one which would most likely be the least despicable in the eyes of dyed-in-the-wool "dynamic" language folks? (fwiw, historically i lean more towards the typed (with inference) side than not.) sincerely. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
