On 8 May 2011 06:30, phil swenson <[email protected]> wrote: > well the article was called "java.next()" > > But why not have the best of both worlds? Static typing/type > inference. Optional dynamic typing where it makes sense. Mirah, and > Fantom do this. > > So does Scala now, as of version 2.9.0.RC3
Though it's generally regarded as a necessary evil for the sake of interop with groovy, Jruby, Clojure, etc. and not something for use in typical code. > On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 2:19 AM, Russel Winder <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Sat, 2011-05-07 at 13:25 -0600, phil swenson wrote: > > [ . . . ] > >> *BUT* I don't think it's java.next. If groovy had decided to do > >> static typing way back when I think it would already be java.next (w/ > >> optional dynamic typing). But they didn't so it's simply too slow... > >> and a dynamically typed language will never have the quality of IDE > >> tooling that Java enjoys. Just isn't doable. > > > > Why should Groovy even try to market itself as java.next? The whole > > point of Groovy is to provide a dynamic symbiote to Java (or any other > > language on the JVM that creates class files, Scala, Clojure, Groovy++, > > Fantom, etc.) > > > > Groovy cannot do static typing because it has a full runtime meta-object > > protocol, any type checking there is has to happen at runtime. It will > > always therefore execute relatively slowly compared to fully compiled > > languages. I don't consider this a blot or black mark, it is a feature. > > Groovy++ is interesting as it bridges the divide providing static typing > > and compilation leading to speed. But some capabilities are lost -- > > whilst others are gained. That is the whole point, there is no single > > winner in the static vs dynamic warfare, each approach has properties > > and capabilities. These apply more in certain cases leading to > > decisions about which language to use in which parts of which systems. > > > > I have to admit whenever I see threads trying to argue "dynamic is > > better than static" or "static is better than dynamic" as an abstract > > absolute, I stop reading and delete. > > > > -- > > Russel. > > > ============================================================================= > > Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: > sip:[email protected] > > 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] > > London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder > > > > -- > 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. > > -- Kevin Wright gtalk / msn : [email protected] <[email protected]>mail: [email protected] vibe / skype: kev.lee.wright quora: http://www.quora.com/Kevin-Wright twitter: @thecoda "My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not regard them as "lines produced" but as "lines spent": the current conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side of the ledger" ~ Dijkstra -- 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.
