[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Perhaps but that isn't at issue. I can quack and waddle.
Am I a duck?
Real time systems need fast execution. Dynamic typing
is a good distributed tool but a lousy real time tool
where both safety and speed are necessary.
A statically typed library is a better bet for aggregate
development. The lover of dynamic typing who
has no use for static typing can be someone who optimizes
their own work and craft to the exclusion of others.
"Works for me. The bugs are your problem." and those
people have no business working large systems development
projects. Is it really that tough to declare types
and get some help from the compiler?
Given bad implementation or linked libraries in other
languages, it is foolish to rely simply on type safety.
On the other hand, it isn't foolish to use a language
that provides type safety. If your point is that
real men don't need static type languages, at times
you might be right. If your point is that static type
safety isn't a strong guarantee given the myriad
ways errors can occur (eg, casting, dangling pointers),
you are right. On the other hand, optimization
by compilers, being able to ignore low level details,
a bit more type safety even if not 100%, and interface
modularity are worth the trouble for the projects
that need faster execution and safer libraries.
History is littered with the corpses of geese claimed
to be ducks.
len
From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com]
On Wed, 2005-01-05 at 11:27 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Why else would it have been invented?
That question underscores a huge deal about the differences in our
thinking.
|
