Dynamic Typing vs Dynamic Language Explained
I've just finished reading a very interesting post on the virtues of static typing compared to dynamic typing
. It took me some time to get my head round the Ruby, Python, OCaml and Haskell code examples.
Groovy supports static typing, Ruby and Python don't. Because they are dynamic languages their compilers or interpreters can't know how method calls will be dispatched (this information is only available at runtime). Their Meta-Object Protocol implementations are the power of these dynamic languages.
Dismissing Ruby, Python and Groovy because they don't check types at compile-time does not take into account the power of dynamic languages. I understand that non-dynamic languages are desirable for many reasons but so are dynamic languages.
Mais: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://groovy.dzone.com/news/dynamic-typing-vs-dynamic-lang">http://groovy.dzone.com/news/dynamic-ty ... namic-lang</a><!-- m -->
OBS: Há vários artigos interessantes no Groovy Zone. Sugiro que assinem o RSS: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://feeds.dzone.com/zones/groovy">http://feeds.dzone.com/zones/groovy</a><!-- m -->