To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
you wrote: "Now as for making static languages more dynamic: I think adding optional static typing to dynamic languages is a better approach IF - and this is critical - IF you have coding guidelines in place and enforced. That's the short answer, the long one is in an article a few weeks down the road."
So just like Perl 6 is doing now, adding optional static typing. I think the Parrot open-source "Common Language Runtime" and Perl 6 will be huge in about 2-3 years time. I'd be interested in that article.
I'll check out "growing a language." You have a good idea for the article, but just need to tighten it up a bit - it tended to meander. Sorry to be critical, but i double-majored in Poetry, and can be a bit anal sometime :-)




Member since:
2006-07-30
Well, yes and no.
Adding features _later_on_ makes debugging a nightmare.
That's the problem with extending languages which is otherwise a very smart evolutionary path - just see the success of C++.
Having features in the language right from the start that noobs don't use is something entirely different.
Ideally you would put as much as possible into libraries. Google for "growing a language", you might like it.
Now as for making static languages more dynamic:
I think adding optional static typing to dynamic languages is a better approach IF - and this is critical - IF you have coding guidelines in place and enforced. That's the short answer, the long one is in an article a few weeks down the road.