On Tuesday 04 July 2006 21:01, Audrey Tang wrote: > Hence I'm puzzled why you raise the "dynamic language" categorization > as a justification, for that term usually refers to dynamic typing, > not to :immediate. If it is referring to :immediate, then Python/ > Ruby/PHP would become static languages. :-)
That doesn't quite seem fair; dynamic is a lot broader than just typing. Certainly any statically typed language with decent support for generic operations (or at least type-safe polymorphism) and a non-static loading scheme would be sufficiently dynamic. I can't point to an example of such a language, but there you go. -- c
