On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 at 17:05:54 UTC, Russel Winder via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
I believe it is not that at all. Writing code using a dynamic
language
is a totally different mind set to working with a static
language, even
if many similar code idioms appear to be being used.
I kind of agree, but as you pointed out (with Go): no language is
really static, but a point in a design space.
You still get runtime errors.
You still get values out of bounds.
So both Python and D are on the same scale.
And they are both less "strict" than a functional language with
heavy duty type constraints and formal proof mechanisms.
The idioms of Go do not apply to D and C++.
I think the issues I am having with Go is that it hasn't quite
found the idioms that work best yet. So libraries are a bit
lacking in terms of usability IMO.
You can probably say the same about D, even though it draws
heavily on C++. Perhaps drawing on C++ is holding it back too.
Time will show.
Ola.
