On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 09:42:34AM +1000, Adelle Hartley wrote: > Andre Pang wrote: > > I think dynamic typing's actually a total cop-out. There is > > exactly one sceneario where dynamic typing is necessary and > > useful, which is when you are loading unknown code at > > run-time (e.g. plugins) and you have no idea what that code > > could potentially do. Dynamic typing is useful there since > > you're actually doing type-checking of the code you're > > loading and ensuring that it's at least of the correct type[1]. > > Is it even necessary then? Why should plugins not be of type "Plugin"?
I've deleted Andre's original, but I guess he's saying it's possible to do strong dynamic typing. Which java does surely. > My ideal language would be a statically-typed version of Ruby. Is anyone > already working on that? Apparently the recently opened up http://strongtalk.org/index.html is pretty close to that. Matt _______________________________________________ coders mailing list coders@slug.org.au http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/coders
