Kevin Smith zenparsing at
Sun Jun 29 19:46:24 PDT 2014

Bruno and John's arguments are classic examples of the straw man fallacy.
 In my concrete examples I made no reference to static type systems (or any
type systems at all, for that matter).  I merely pointed out that by
allowing the programmer to provide compile-time information in the form of
exports and declarative forms, a world of possibilities opens up.

Of course, static information can always be *inferred* from dynamic.
 That's basically how JS engines work, but raising that up to some ideal
principle is foolish dogmatism.

They accuse me of advocating decades-old technology, but it is purely
dynamic JS that is decades old.  "Evolve or die" is the way.  The "we don't
need no stinkin' classes" argument is counter-productive, counter-intuitive
reactionary garbage, and quite frankly it bores me.

: P
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list