Re: dynamic type checking - a pauline conversion?

From: Daniel T. (postmaster_at_eathlink.net)
Date: 03/17/04 

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 02:12:45 GMT

"Ilja Preuß" <preuss@disy.net> wrote:
> Daniel T. wrote:
> > "Ilja Preuss" <ilja.preuss@web.de> wrote:
> >> Daniel T. wrote:
> >
> >>> If you don't write your code like this in C++, then I won't buy your
> >>> package.
> >>
> >> Wouldn't that depend on how much less it costs to write it in a
> >> different way???
> >
> > As I have said before, dynamic typed languages have many strengths
> > over static typed ones, but the opposite is also true. For me, its a
> > wash...
>
> Is that a "yes" or a "no"???

I refuse to answer a loaded question with a simple yes or no...

Wether the code was written in a static or dynamic typed language, types
exist. Types that can be analyzed statically (ie a class diagram can be
drawn up for example.) The only question is, how much of of that
analysis must be present in the code. With static-typed languages more
of it exists in the code than with dynamic-typed languages.