Basic, javascript and a few others have weak typing.
Python, Lisp, Perl, Ruby, Smalltalk and a few others have dynamic
typing. Which is very different. (Although Perl's case is, like
everything else when Perl is in the sentence, arguable.)
I can't fathom a case of high-level code where strong typing is better
than dynamic... for low-level yes, but then you would probably be using
C or assembler anyway.
In fact, I think this was one of the (many) mistakes of C# "design".
But that's a prejudiced opinion; I just looked at tutorials and example
code, and turned away in disgust. Maybe it's better if you actually use
it a bit. (I know Python's indentation takes some getting used to...
and smalltalk's/objC's keyword args.
One funny thing is that it's not hard to beat C++ into dynamic typing.
Your typical VOS application is at least partially dynamic typed.
Although in my dream world, the dream language uses neither kind... it
uses "interface typing" exclusively. But I don't know a language that
works like that in the real world :-)
And so says Hugh Perkins on 13/03/06 11:03...
> Yes, you're right, for many applications weak typing is better, because
> it produces more compact, easier to read code.
best,
Lalo Martins
--
So many of our dreams at first seem impossible,
then they seem improbable, and then, when we
summon the will, they soon become inevitable.
--
personal: http://www.laranja.org/
technical: http://lalo.revisioncontrol.net/
GNU: never give up freedom http://www.gnu.org/
_______________________________________________
vos-d mailing list
vos-d@interreality.org
http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
