Am I missing something with Python not having interfaces?

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

jmDesktop a écrit :
(snip)

> On the dynamic typing,
> isn't that the same sort of thing that lots of scripting languages
> do?

This is not restricted to scripting languages - that is, unless you'd 
call Smalltalk, Erlang or common lisp "scripting languages".

Also and FWIW, static typing in C is mostly here to help the compiler 
optimizing, and it's very common to use void pointers and typecast to 
get some genericity (cf the sort() function in C stdlib). And you have 
the same pattern in Java with "generic" containers storing only "object" 
instances, then you have to cast your objects back to the appropriate 
type (which may fails, leading to a runtime error).

>  VBScript doesn't require you to define your variables,

You mean "to declare the type of your variables" ? Neither OCaml nor 
Haskell require this, and they are both statically and strongly typed.

> but I
> don't really want to use it for anything 

Neither do I, but not because of dynamic typing. By experience, dynamic 
typing works just fine for most applications. And by experience too, 
static typing doesn't magically make your code bullet-proof.

> (used to use it a lot in
> Classic ASP.)  I believe everyone that Python is great, but some of it
> doesn't make sense to me as to why.  

Quite a lot of Java stopped making sens to me since I learned some other 
languages. And most of the "OO" (hem) complexity, patterns madness etc 
you'll typically find in Java code only exists because of the language's 
arbitrary restrictions and lack of expressivity.

Learn Python, learn Ruby or (preferably) Smalltalk, learn common lisp or 
(preferably) Scheme, learn OCaml or (preferably) Haskell, learn Erlang, 
and you'll find out that there's much more in programming and languages 
than can be dreamt of in Java's  philosophy !-)