[Pharo-users] Dynamic Typing > Static Typing? « games.greggman.com

Martin Bähr mbaehr at email.archlab.tuwien.ac.at
Wed Jan 20 10:57:37 EST 2016


Excerpts from Dimitris Chloupis's message of 2016-01-20 12:36:37 +0100:
> we have witnessed 3 great migrations of coders
> 1) The migration from Assembly to C/C++ and other high level languages
> 2) The migration from C++ as the dominant force of coding to Java
> 3) The migration from static types languages to dynamic typed languages

that's a great observation! and you are right, dynamic typed languages have won
and smalltalk and lisp had it right all along.

> On the matter of python getting optional static typing I can say this and
> predict this, static type will never become anywhere as big for python as
> generic types are in static type languages and I say that because I have a
> good understanding of the python culture.

that's a good point too. what i am interested in is the fact that having types
available in these languages, research can finally look for conclusive evidence
of how much advantage types really give, because all other differences between
eg python and c++ are eliminated.

i simply do not believe that any findings about types, by comparing python with
c++ is valid because they are such different beasts of languages.

greetings, martin.

-- 
eKita                   -   the online platform for your entire academic life
-- 
chief engineer                                                       eKita.co
pike programmer      pike.lysator.liu.se    caudium.net     societyserver.org
secretary                                                      beijinglug.org
mentor                                                           fossasia.org
foresight developer  foresightlinux.org                            realss.com
unix sysadmin
Martin Bähr          working in china        http://societyserver.org/mbaehr/




More information about the Pharo-users mailing list