3 ms·
I didn't enumerate the reasons that I don't use dynamic languages, because that would have been flame-bait territory. I see this suggestion as a way in which s
by gdp 17y ago
I didn't enumerate the reasons that I don't use dynamic languages, because that would have been flame-bait territory.
I see this suggestion as a way in which static languages could be better at prototyping in the same way that dynamic languages sometimes are, so I think you noticed my (implied) assumption that there was something desirable about this idiom that is not as readily achievable using existing methods in languages like ML or Haskell.
That said, I can't see that there is any reason why what I suggest wouldn't be useful in a dynamic language, too. The implementation details just change a bit.
Even bringing dynamic languages into the conversation was an just to counter to people saying "Use ___" where ___ is one of Python, Ruby etc, which is basically a non-solution for my purposes.
- mahmud 17y agoIf this was anybody else, I would tell them to explore alternative programming methodologies, styles, and languages. But not you gdp; you know what you're doing, so if you're hitting a dead end with interactive ML, I don't think many people can help you, you might be at a frontier here (at least I can't; I have dropped my last static language 8 years ago when I decided to have my cake and eat it too with the Lisp family.)
- gdp 17y agoWell, sure, I wasn't hoping that somebody would say "this already exists and here it is" (though that might be nice) - I was saying "here's something that would improve my life". Maybe I'll even take the time to implement it one of these days!