On Sun, 2012-07-29 at 13:46 -0300, Ricky Clarkson wrote: […] > I find it insane that a language lets me add type annotations as if I were > writing in a typed language, and then does nothing with them until runtime.
But the point here is that although you find it insane others do not. The inference is that you should not use dynamically typed languages, but that those that want to should be allowed to and not be considered insane. The moral here is to allow diversity (*) rather than to coerce uniformity. > That was actually the subject of early Groovy hype, with lines like "It's > statically typed at runtime!". I can't find quotes now, that stuff has > validly disappeared from the Internet. I have no idea where that one came from, it is wrong. I can imagine someone saying "It's strongly typed at runtime!" […] (*) I was going to use the term "libertarian" somewhere in here but that has such different meanings in different places as to be an unusable term. -- 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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
