2 ms·
> the full power of dynamic languages? There is nothing you can do in a dynamic language you can't do in a typed language. There is no "special power" that onl
by mbrodersen 7y ago
> the full power of dynamic languages?
There is nothing you can do in a dynamic language you can't do in a typed language. There is no "special power" that only dynamic languages have. If you truly believe that dynamic languages have "special powers" that typed languages can't have then I recommend studying a bit of basic computer science. Starting with the Turing Machine or Lambda Calculus.
- wellpast 7y ago> There is nothing you can do in a dynamic language you can't do in a typed language. There is nothing one can't do in assembly that you can't do it in a higher-level PL. The argument is not what one can or can't do. The argument is that one world (dynamism) allows for higher throughput than a static-checked environment. This can be discussed but the "can do" argument is of no interest. You "can do" anything given enough time. One doesn't even need a programming language. You can manually execute instructions by hand. But this is not the discussion.
- mbrodersen 7y ago> The argument is that one world (dynamism) allows for higher throughput than a static-checked environment. I have programmed in both dynamic languages and typed languages for 35+ years. And I am most definitely more productive using a typed language. Otherwise I wouldn't. So I wonder why our experiences are so different?