On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 07:02:59AM +0100, Timon Gehr wrote: > 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
Yeah, that one always cracks me up. Funny how the same terms get applied in completely unrelated ways in different places, often in conflicting ways. Reminds me of how "French horn" refers to an instrument that neither originated nor developed in France (it was in Germany that where most of its modern development took place), or "English horn", which isn't even a "horn" to begin with, but a reed instrument, and neither did it develop in England. (Now just don't get me started on "Liberty Horn"...) T -- Gone Chopin. Bach in a minuet.
