On 2006-08-17, Ted Zlatanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 17 Aug 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On 2006-08-17, Ted Zlatanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> You could consider Perl. >> >> If I wanted a strongly timebomb-typed language, I'd probably use Lua. >> But I don't think timebomb typing should be used for largeish projects, >> especially not ones that one should be able to depend on, although >> strong timebomb typing can be quite nice for small hacky stuff. > > I think the term "timebomb" reveals a lot of bias. But that, of > course, is your prerogative. I'll just point out that Perl modules > hide complexity and can enforce strong types, if that's what you > need.
'Timebomb' refers to errors related to typing being possible at run time, be this either runtime type errors in strong timebomb typing, or NULL pointer references in weak timebomb typing. Or are you telling me that perl has type inference (it surely doesn't have type signatures), and can at compile time assure me of the type-correctness of the program, instead of having me and the users wait for the moment, when the program crashes in such an error? -- Tuomo
