On Wed Sep 20, 2006 at 13:45:32 +1000, O Plameras wrote: >Benno wrote: >>On Wed Sep 20, 2006 at 12:58:15 +1000, O Plameras wrote: >> >>>Michael (Micksa) Slade wrote: >>> >>>>I love perl. And if I had/took the time to learn python or ruby, I'm >>>>sure I would love them too (maybe slightly less, but let's not go >>>>there). Without dynamic typing I doubt these languages would be as >>>>flexible as they are. >>>> >>>Since you love perl, you'll even love Ruby. >>>When you have time, have a look at these. >>> >>>What I'm trying to point out in the >>>previous paragraphs is that the advantages >>>of static types over dynamic types are >>>more than offset by the benefits of the >>>approximation of our natural language, >>>which helps in formatting the right >>>syntax and producing more for a >>>given time frame. >>> >> >>You are conflating two issues. Static vs. dynamic typing and low-level >>vs. high-level language. The two are not mutually exclusive! >> >Yes, I am linking Static vs. Dynamic in the aspects >that they refer to Haskell/Ocaml/etc vs Perl/Python/Ruby/etc >respectively. > >So, as you can see Static, i.e., Haskell/Ocaml/etc and Dynamic, >i.e., Perl/Python/Ruby/etc; Computer Oriented, i.e., >Haskell/Ocaml/etc and Programmer Oriented, i.e., >Perl/Python/Ruby/etc. > >Fair associations are'nt they ?
No, I don't think they are fair associations. I don't believe Ocaml or Haskell is "computer oriented" (whatever that term might mean). C could fall into that category. Ocaml and Haskell are very programmer oriented in my opinion. By the way, the contraction of are not, is aren't, not are'nt. Cheers, Benno _______________________________________________ coders mailing list coders@slug.org.au http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/coders
