"Andrei Alexandrescu" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > There's been quite some discussion lately about dynamically-typed > languages et al. Here's a pretty good and easy-to-follow presentation by > Peter Norvig (AI guru among other gurusdoms he owns) on how > dynamically-typed languages make implementation of various design patterns > considerably easier: > > http://norvig.com/design-patterns/ > >
Not to be a curmudgeon, but I don't think that brings to the table anything about dynamic languages that hasn't already been discussed to death in the static vs dynamic war. Dynamic languages are already well known for having less boilerplate. And according to static-language people, that comes at the cost of increased difficulty in bug prevention/detection. The observations in that presentation seem to be purely symptomatic of that well-knon fact about dynamic languages and not only glosses over the potential downsides but also falls into the common failing of attributing certain things to being inherently "dynamic-language" despite D containing proof to the contrary.
