A Thought On Dynamic Languages

Reading http://www.codecommit.com/blog/ruby/monads-are-not-metaphors got me thinking on a tangent not related to the article. The examples start in ruby then move to Scala. Daniel points out the difference between some of the scala and ruby code which led me to the following thoughts.

Duck type code encourages reading the source of methods to see the type requirements of params. This is  a good thing.

For this to work well methods need to be short and well written, another good thing. While this doesn’t negate the value of STRONG types, it does make the case for dynamic languages better.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>