On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 2:34 AM, B Smith-Mannschott <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 08:28, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > I still have some hope for Fantom because I don't think it crossed that >> > threshold yet, but it's getting dangerously close to it. >> >> What speaks to Fantom's advantage is it's dynamic typing feature, >> something Scala ignores completely - in spite of various luminaries >> view that the static and dynamic world will inevitably merge down to >> opt-in semantics. Unfortunately Scala seems to run with all the >> attention, regardless of the bad taste in the mouth it leaves with lot >> of people. >> > > You can get much of the benefit of dynamic typing by using Scala's > structural typing: > http://codemonkeyism.com/scala-goodness-structural-typing/ > > This has been part of the languge since at least 2.6 (July 2007). (3 > years!) > Yup, and two years ago, I explained why I thought that both duck typing and structural typing were dangerous :-) Details here<http://beust.com/weblog/2008/02/11/structural-typing-vs-duck-typing/> . (note that this is something I wrote about Scala in 2008, for people who think that I just discovered the language) -- Cédric -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
