On 8 December 2010 10:22, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > > Everyone here does realise that we're getting dangerously close to the > old > > "dynamic vs static typing" religious war, right? > > Yes but there's no reason to get religious about it, "static when you > can, dynamic when you must" goes a long way.
Quite, with the idealistic goal of a dependant, pure and total type system being to maximise "when you can", and reduce "when you must" to "never". Haskell is pretty good in this regard, Coq and Agda are better still. I'll let James Iry explain, he does a better job than me :) http://james-iry.blogspot.com/2010/05/types-la-chart.html > > Regardless of your perspective on that debate; I think it's fair to say > that > > an organisation who's primary business role is to pump around serious > > amounts of money would be interested in the added safety and verification > > that a static type system offers, and really wouldn't look kindly on any > > attempts to subvert that extra security. > > Here's where I stop to wonder... what kind of nasty source code > littered with BigDecimal and associated formatting/rounding logic, can > you find in a place like that? It scared me to think about. > Using the `BigDecimal(double d)` constructor as well, no doubt :) -- Kevin Wright mail / gtalk / msn : [email protected] pulse / skype: kev.lee.wright twitter: @thecoda -- 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.
