4 ms·

static typing does NOT mean C# and java - there are far better statically typed languages out there.

• lucisferre 15y ago
  Agreed. But they do embody the strict static typing philosophy which I do acknowledge is clearly a straw man of the authors point of view.
  • bunderbunder 15y ago
    C# has supported dynamic typing since version 4.0. At this point it doesn't make much sense to say that C# is strictly anything. It's perhaps the most obsessively multi-paradigm language out there.
    • lucisferre 15y ago
      Ugh, `dynamic` doesn't provide the benefits of a dynamically typed language by long, long way, and yes I've used it extensively. But thanks for the downvote all the same. http://wekeroad.com/2010/08/09/csharps-new-clothes/ http://wekeroad.com/2010/08/09/csharps-new-clothes/ In case you plan on skimming that and missing the details the tl;dr is that Rob, pushes `dynamic` as far as he can and it still comes up far short of the extensibility and expressiveness of Ruby constructs.
      • bwarp 15y ago
        Upvoted. Spot on. It's nowhere near as dynamic as a basic dynamic language. So much so that I just don't bother with dynamic in C# (I also don't bother with nullable types and a load of other features as well but that's another story). However, I don't find that a problem. I tend to prefer the correctness of statically typed languages these days.