On 3/8/02 7:56 AM, "Paul Brannan" <paul / atdesk.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 05:34:43PM +0900, Robert Feldt wrote:
>> ...relevant to Ruby compared to other languages discussion:
>> 
>> http://www.chimu.com/publications/short/whyDynamicTyping.html
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> /Robert
> 
> Interesting.  The author starts with some rather odd claims about
> needing lots of extra code in staticly typed languages, but I find his
> number of 850% more hard to believe.  Templates in C++ help out nicely
> here; afaik, Java has no such mechanism, and appears to be what the
> author is familiar with.

I've been dragged, kicking and screaming, to the conclusion that templates
are a symptom that C++ is too strongly typed in the first place. They have
some nasty side effects too in terms of code bloat and making programs hard
to debug. I'm assuming you've read Meyers's books and know how to mitigate
the code bloat problem but look again. Isn't he really just using templates
to defeat the strong typing built into the language.

Last time I looked, Java had acquired some primitive generic programming
facilities.

> Writing in a static-typed language does require more boilerplate code,
> but certainly not on the order of 850% more.  The reason I write less
> code in Ruby is because of Ruby's standard library more so than it is
> because Ruby is dynamicly typed.

I agree that 850% doesn't pass the straight face test.

-- 
C++: The power, elegance and simplicity of a hand grenade.