3 ms·
More expressive than Java, sure. Java doesn't have overloaded operators, or cv-qualifiers, or templates, or many many many other things that make the type desig
by barrkel 7y ago
More expressive than Java, sure. Java doesn't have overloaded operators, or cv-qualifiers, or templates, or many many many other things that make the type design space more expressive.
Ruby is hardly expressive at all in this respect - you can express to the interpreter very little about types, and the interpreter won't help you much at all.
- pkolaczk 7y agoC++ doesn't have GC, reflection, annotations, code generation utilities (annotation processors, cglib, etc), first-class generic types, existential types, rich standard library etc. That's why it is "arguable". > you can express to the interpreter very little about types Dynamic types are still types. Only the error detection moment is different, but lack of static types doesn't mean low expressivity.