On 6 Oct 2013, at 04:35, zcaudate <z...@caudate.me> wrote:

> I'm a little bit miffed over this current craze of `types` and `correctness` 
> of programs. It smells to me of the whole `object` craze of the last two 
> decades.

This debate is as old as the hills (it certainly predates object-oriented 
programming). There's no question that there is a valid debate to be had about 
static versus dynamic typing, but most such debates are hamstrung by basic 
misunderstandings. 

The best explanation of these misunderstandings I've come across is "What to 
Know Before Debating Type Systems":

http://cdsmith.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/an-old-article-i-wrote/

In particular it asserts (correctly in my view) that what static type system 
proponents mean by "type" and what dynamic type system proponents mean by 
"type" are very different things. Most debates founder on a failure to 
recognise that difference.

--
paul.butcher->msgCount++

Snetterton, Castle Combe, Cadwell Park...
Who says I have a one track mind?

http://www.paulbutcher.com/
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/paulbutcher
MSN: p...@paulbutcher.com
AIM: paulrabutcher
Skype: paulrabutcher

-- 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to