in reply to On the Evolution of Languages
I've not read anything from/about him since reading his C++ text years ago, but the following (about dynamic vs. static):
Not really. I think people are comparing apples and oranges too often. I don't think we have a choice between static and dynamic languages in general and furthermore I don't think languages cleanly fit into those two categories: most if not all dynamic languages have aspects that are statically determined, and all the major static languages can do things that require run-time determination of the meaning of values. There are fashions, of course, and I can't guess about those, but I think that many real-world language choices are rationally made based on the requirements of an application, an application area, and/or the skills of the available developers.
... marks him as a pretty cool fellow. I don't like it when people try to stuff languages in little boxes (like, for example, 'scripting language') into which they do not fit.
Also, I imagine that most, when confronted with a question like "dynamic vs. static languages" would feel compelled to say something profound over something pithy. Or even just plug the virtues of their own language. Instead he tells the truth, that language choice is a really complex space with many factors. Not a sexy sound bite, but true.
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re^2: On the Evolution of Languages
by jdporter (Paladin) on Apr 18, 2008 at 13:41 UTC | |
|
Re^2: On the Evolution of Languages
by ady (Deacon) on Apr 20, 2008 at 13:33 UTC |