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

Dimitris Chloupis kilon.alios at gmail.com
Wed Jan 20 11:13:18 EST 2016


indeed python and C++ are not just diffirent but two languages going the
exact opposite directions, Python emphasizing speed of development , C++
emphasizing speed of execution.

In C/C++ every decision must be based upon performance, this not how any
other language works , even Java is not that worried about performance,
sure its important but it is not the main goal.

Hence its not surprising that C++ is the undisputed choice for very
performance orientated fields, like Gaming, audio , science that involves
heavy calculation. Look at python how popular it has become for scientists
but AFTER the fact that so many C++ libraries have been made for python
like numpy/scipy and Blaze.

So you are absolute to say that some people migrate to dynamic languages
not just for dynamic types and is also to say that people stick with C++
and C not because of static types. If that was the case python would not
implement optional static types and C++ would not implement generics.

The important thing to note here is that we no longer at 80 and 90s ,
nowdays you can combine any language with anything else and the vast
majority of projects are written in multiple languages.

I dont agree with the remark "Smalltalk and Lisp were right all along" ,
obviously they were not because the entire world would have been using
smalltalk and lisp which we dont. To claim so is to try to simplify coding
and with every simplification it loses a part of the truth.

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 5:57 PM Martin Bähr <
mbaehr at email.archlab.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:

> 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pharo.org/pipermail/pharo-users_lists.pharo.org/attachments/20160120/8453d92e/attachment.html>


More information about the Pharo-users mailing list