Re: Re: Optional Strong Typing

David Hanson davidhanson90 at hotmail.com
Sun Sep 1 00:14:13 PDT 2013


Eric Meijer I think says it very well in this very interesting paper that I recommend all read here. 


http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.69.5966&rep=rep1&type=pdf


“In the mother of all papers on scripting [16], John Ousterhout argues that statically typed systems programming languages make code less reusable, more verbose, not more safe, and less expressive than dynamically typed scripting languages. This argument is parroted literally by many proponents of dynamically typed scripting languages. We argue that this is a fallacy and falls into the same category as arguing that the essence of declarative programming is eliminating assignment. Or as John Hughes says [8], it is a logical impossibility to make a language more powerful by omitting features. Defending the fact that delaying all type-checking to runtime is a good thing, is playing ostrich tactics with the fact that errors should be caught as early in the development process as possible”





Sent from Windows Mail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130901/c74fb524/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list