Benno wrote:
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 computer oriented I meant, the syntax is not close to
a natural language, like English, which is what I alluded to
when I say that Perl/Python/Ruby are close to a natural
language.
I will modify my statement:
Perl/Python/Ruby is closer to English (a natural language)
than Haskell/Ocaml is.
O Plameras
_______________________________________________
coders mailing list
coders@slug.org.au
http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/coders
