"(I'm not against types, but I don't know of any type systems that aren't a complete pain, so I still like dynamic typing.)OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things. It can be done in Smalltalk and in LISP. There are possibly other systems in which this is possible, but I'm not aware of them."
"A statically typed language with type inference will give you some of the same benefits as a good dynamic language, but definitely not all of them. In particular, you get different benefits and a larger degree of flexibility from a dynamic language that can't be achieved in a static language. Neal Ford and others have been talking about the distinction between dynamic and static typing as being incorrect. The real question is between essence and ceremony. Java is a ceremonious language because it needs you to do several dances to the rain gods to declare even the simplest form of method. In an essential language you will say what you need to say, but nothing else. This is one of the reasons dynamic languages and type-inferenced static languages sometimes look quite alike - it's the absence of ceremony that people react to."
Subscribe to RSS headline updates from:
The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent
my employer's view in any way.
© Copyright 2005-2013, Arnon Rotem-Gal-Oz
DirectionalRedux theme by John Forsythe and Jon Stovall