Comments on: Zwart http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/512 A Pythoneer's adventures with Scheme, Clojure and a whole lot more. ^_^ Sat, 22 May 2010 22:09:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Hans Nowak http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/512/comment-page-1#comment-484 Hans Nowak Sun, 01 Feb 2009 17:15:33 +0000 http://4.flowsnake.org/?p=512#comment-484 Hi Jason, """If I call a.b(), and at runtime a doesn't have an implementation of b() to call, your code will break. It is not correct to imply that dynamic languages don't have type checking. They do, but not static type checking.""" Hmm, are you saying that a failed call to a.b() (because there is no b()) is a form of type checking? I never saw it that way, as they are no *types* being checked here. This is where tests come in, of course... you test that a.b() returns a reasonable result, and it so happens that if b() doesn't exist, your test fails. Hi Jason,

“”"If I call a.b(), and at runtime a doesn’t have an implementation of b() to call, your code will break. It is not correct to imply that dynamic languages don’t have type checking. They do, but not static type checking.”"”

Hmm, are you saying that a failed call to a.b() (because there is no b()) is a form of type checking? I never saw it that way, as they are no *types* being checked here.

This is where tests come in, of course… you test that a.b() returns a reasonable result, and it so happens that if b() doesn’t exist, your test fails.

]]> By: Jason Gorman http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/512/comment-page-1#comment-483 Jason Gorman Sun, 01 Feb 2009 13:55:19 +0000 http://4.flowsnake.org/?p=512#comment-483 If I call a.b(), and at runtime a doesn't have an implementation of b() to call, your code will break. It is not correct to imply that dynamic languages don't have type checking. They do, but not static type checking. You cannot have flexibility beyond that. At some point, when the interprer hits that statement - and even if a.b() has been dynamically generated at runtime (which we can do in C# and Java, too) - there has to be an implementation to invoke. Still waiting to have the actual tangible benefits explained to me, BTW :-) If I call a.b(), and at runtime a doesn’t have an implementation of b() to call, your code will break. It is not correct to imply that dynamic languages don’t have type checking. They do, but not static type checking. You cannot have flexibility beyond that. At some point, when the interprer hits that statement – and even if a.b() has been dynamically generated at runtime (which we can do in C# and Java, too) – there has to be an implementation to invoke.

Still waiting to have the actual tangible benefits explained to me, BTW :-)

]]> By: Mailund on the Internet » Blog Archive » This week in the blogs… http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/512/comment-page-1#comment-482 Mailund on the Internet » Blog Archive » This week in the blogs… Sun, 01 Feb 2009 12:13:34 +0000 http://4.flowsnake.org/?p=512#comment-482 [...] Zwart (Drinkable Chicken) [...] [...] Zwart (Drinkable Chicken) [...]

]]>