SLUG Mailing List Archives
Re: dynamic vs static type checking (was Re: [SLUG] Your top-ten linux desktop apps)
- To: slug@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: dynamic vs static type checking (was Re: [SLUG] Your top-ten linux desktop apps)
- From: Bruce Badger <bwbadger@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:18:12 +1000
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=EZnLwhPdA6kENCBjdNDeM0OJBIPXcNdRdqT14rFe0dXiKwmp0a60lxbjEAGlIiwPN6L0BrZo7fh21zDVcdNEXnjfc3vHZ3VRiE5c5GKdLlX/YgmqcanAupiA/LjZacABeR6GG12vQO5jfQ4pq1w5xBBVN+KJbuSYPCeoKKvm5B0=
- Reply-to: Bruce Badger <bwbadger@xxxxxxxxx>
On 9/27/05, Erik de Castro Lopo <erikd-slug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The problem with dynamic typing is that it postones testing for an
> important class of errors (type errors) until run time.
Nah. In fact the oposite is true. Static typing is just another form
of premature optimisation!
I make extensive use of dynamically typed languages (Smalltalk mostly)
and the class of problem one might imagine that static typing save you
from I just don't encounter in practice.
Each to their own, of course :-)
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills