On Wednesday 26 August 2009 04:37:58 Alan Busby wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 5:43 AM, npowell <nathan.pow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I mean, I didn't think the article was terribly in depth, but a real, > > evenhanded comparison would be enlightening. > > Reducing it further, I'd be interested just to hear more about the contrast > of static typing versus macros. Which is more beneficial for different > situations and why?
Both are used in OCaml but static typing is, of course, far more common there because it is a core feature of the language. They really solve completely different problems. Static typing is used to improve performance, catch errors, provide a form of machine-verified documentation and convey information to the programmer in the IDE or REPL. Macros are used to extend the syntax of the language either for adding missing general features or for creating DSL. Additionally, OCaml's macro system is often used for general lexing and parsing or arbitrary syntaxes. -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
