On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Carl Jokl <[email protected]> wrote: > I must confess I am not so fond of dynamic typing. I like the fact > that the compiler can catch a lot of mistakes at compile time in a > statically typed language.
I understand that. There are excellent arguments for using both static and dynamically typed languages. I think we've all heard them by now. No point rehashing them. People that feel strongly about using strongly typed languages are not going to like JavaScript. > I can appreciate many like dynamically > typed languages. What is annoying at the moment is that people simply > have no choice. If the scripting engine provided an intermediate > format that compilers could target then developers could use what they > prefer. More choice would be good, but I don't see it happening. Most people won't use a new browser-supported programming language unless it is supported by at least IE, Firefox, Chrome and Safari. It's hard to imagine the groups that control those browsers agreeing on a new language to support. -- R. Mark Volkmann Object Computing, Inc. -- 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.
