On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 9:30 AM, 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.
Within a given program, I'm curious of an example where dynamic typing actually "makes sense." Wasn't there a study that showed even in traditional dynamic languages, the majority of the runtime behavior was consistent with a static type model? -- 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.
