On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Bruno Medeiros <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/11/2010 14:19, Bruno Medeiros wrote: > >> way in the future. I think dynamic languages are somewhat of a niche >> (even if a growing one), but not really heading to be mainstream in >> medium/large scale projects. >> > > Sorry, I actually meant "I think dynamic _typing_ is somewhat of a niche" > rather than the above. Yes, the two are closely related, but they are not > the same. > For example, I wouldn't be surprised if in the future certain > dynamically-typed languages gain some static-typing capabilities. (like the > inverse is happening) > > >From reading about this, it seems like what D has is very similar to what Scala calls "Structural Typing" (see http://codemonkeyism.com/scala-goodness-structural-typing/). The difference is that Scala tends to use structural typing with inline type declarations (although they don't have to be inline). However, the basic concept is the same, where a class is dynamically checked for compliance with a static type. Not quite dynamic typing, but definitely related. If you're after a more accurate description, how would that work? Andrew Wiley
