Python from Wise Guy's Viewpoint

[Adrian Hey]

ketil+news at ii.uib.no wrote:
> While Mr. Martin probably should get out more, I must admit that I
> have a nagging feeling about typing and object orientation.  Somebody
> else correlated typing with imperativity, and I suspect dynamic typing
> is a better match for OO than static typing.  But I'm probably making
> the common error of comparing with the rather pedestrian type systems
> of C++ and Java, perhaps O'Haskell and OCaml have systems that work
> better?

I have a my own pet theories to explain the current exitement about
dynamically typed languages. Here they are..

1- Most of this buzz comes from OO folk, many of whom will only have
   (bad) experience of static typing from C/C++/Java.

2- Development of static type systems (and type inferencers/checkers)
   which are strong enough to offer cast iron *guarantees* but at the
   same time are flexible enough to allow useful programs involves
   some tricky theory that few really understand (I won't pretend I do).
   But some language developers don't want to get to bogged down with
   all that difficult and boring theory stuff for however many months
   or years it takes. They want to make their language cooler than the
   competition right now, so have to rely exclusively on the expensive
   run time checks they call "dynamic typing".

3- Given that once this design decision (hack) has been made it is
   irreversible for all practical purposes, enthusiasts/advocates of
   these languages need to "make a virtue of necessesity" by advertising
   all the advantages that dynamic typing brings (allegedly) and
   spreading FUD about all the things you can't do with statically typed
   languages (allegedly). It is likely they will cite C++ in their
   evidence. :-)

Regards
--
Adrian Hey