On 01/22/2013 12:42 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
...It doesn't sound at all like it's an epitome of dynamic language, then. The *core* of it might be, but if it both provides *and* encourages you to use static typing, then if you choose to do so, you're clearly NOT doing dynamic programming - you're doing static programming. I don't see how using a static type system can ever be accurately called "dynamic programming".
I'm doing it all the time. :P http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_programming
