Re: More static type fun.
From: Matthias Blume (find_at_my.address.elsewhere)
Date: 11/18/03
- Next message: Joachim Durchholz: "Re: Why I don't believe in static typing"
- Previous message: Joe Marshall: "Re: Why I don't believe in static typing"
- In reply to: Mario S. Mommer: "Re: More static type fun."
- Next in thread: Mario S. Mommer: "Re: More static type fun."
- Reply: Mario S. Mommer: "Re: More static type fun."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 18 Nov 2003 10:50:32 -0600
Mario S. Mommer <m_mommer@yahoo.com> writes:
> Yes, but you can only do so by restricting your programming
> language. You can go on yapping madly about it, but the truth is: /you
> have restricted your programming language/. It can do less than the
> same language without that restriction [1]. You assert that *for you*
> the benefits of this mutilation of functionality outweight the damage,
> which is alright, but please accept that others find this position
> bizarre.
"yapping", "madly", "mutilation", "damage"
I find your language bizarre. Now, please, someone call us "nazis" so
that this "conversation" be over.
- Next message: Joachim Durchholz: "Re: Why I don't believe in static typing"
- Previous message: Joe Marshall: "Re: Why I don't believe in static typing"
- In reply to: Mario S. Mommer: "Re: More static type fun."
- Next in thread: Mario S. Mommer: "Re: More static type fun."
- Reply: Mario S. Mommer: "Re: More static type fun."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]