Chris Smith wrote: > Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > While I am quite sympathetic to this point, I have to say that > > this horse left the barn quite some time ago. > > I don't think so. Perhaps it's futile to go scouring the world for uses > of the phrase "dynamic type" and eliminating them. It's not useless to > point out when the term is used in a particularly confusing way, though, > as when it's implied that there is some class of "type errors" that is > strictly a subset of the class of "errors". Terminology is often > confused for historical reasons, but incorrect statements eventually get > corrected.
That's fair. One thing that is frustrating to me is that I really want to build an understanding of what dynamic typing is and what its advantages are, but it's difficult to have a productive discussion on the static vs. dynamic topic. Late binding of every function invocation: how does that work, what are the implications of that, what does that buy you? I have come to believe that the two actually represent very different ways of thinking about programming. Which goes a long way to explaining why there are such difficulties communicating. Each side tries to describe to the other how the tools and systems they use facilitate doing tasks that don't exist in the other side's mental model. > > PS. Hi Chris! > > Hi! Where are you posting from these days? I'm mostly on comp.databases.theory, but I also lurk on comp.lang.functional, which is an awesome group, and if you're reading Pierce then you might like it too. Marshall -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
