good chemistry is complicated, and a little bit messy -LW |
|
PerlMonks |
Re^3: Interesting read: "Why I use perl and still hate dynamic language weenies too"by hardburn (Abbot) |
on Apr 17, 2007 at 19:20 UTC ( [id://610624]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
IMHO, the real savings for dynamic vs. static languages is in how it changes your thinking patterns. For instance, when confronted with a problem that involves filtering out duplicate strings, programmers for dynamic languages reflexively reach for an associated array (a hash in Perl, but not necessarily implemented with a hash algorithm in other languages). Users of static languages tend to create their own solutions, even if they have something like an associated array readily at hand (like java.util.Hash). This nearly always results in the dynamic language implementations being smaller, clearer, and more robust. Of note, I don't think users of true strongly-typed languages have the same problems. "There is no shame in being self-taught, only in not trying to learn in the first place." -- Atrus, Myst: The Book of D'ni.
In Section
Perl News
|
|