"Daniel Keep" <daniel.keep.li...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:glqsa7$13e...@digitalmars.com... > > > Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> [snip] >> >> I disagree. Making all add-ons be interpreted scripts is one of the >> biggest >> reasons why Firefox (especially v2) is so absurdly slow (not that I'm a >> fan >> of IE, Opera or Safari). Also, the fact that the vast majority of >> scripting >> languages lack descent compile-time checking (such as static type >> checking >> or mandatory explicit declarations), or at least push it off as a >> secondary >> concern (modern ECMAScript), creates a situation where plugins have a >> tendancy to be unreliable. > > There's an interesting talk Steve Yeggie gave a while back: > http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/05/dynamic-languages-strike-back.html > > There's also a video of it: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=tz-Bb-D6teE > > -- Daniel
Hmm, yea, interesting, although his performance arguments are all about "potential" that, as he points out, isn't going to be realized any time soon for most scripting languages, and his compile-time-checking arguments seem...broken.
