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.
