**DONOTDELETE**
(Unregistered)
07/28/03 12:08 PM
Re: Static typing beneficial?

Agree - and one more data point - Robert C Martin - long an advocate of the rigid static typing found in C++ has apparently had a change of heart.

Quote:

I've been a statically typed bigot for quite a few years. I learned my lesson the hard way while using C. Too many systems crashed in the field due to silly typing errors. When C++ came out, I was an avid adopter, and rabid enforcer of strong typing.
...
About two years ago I noticed something. I was depending less and less on the type system for safety. My unit tests were preventing me from making type errors. The more I depended upon the unit tests, the less I depended upon the type safety of Java or C++ (my languages of choice).

I thought an experiment was in order. So I tried writing some applications in Python, and then Ruby (well known dynamically typed languages). I was not entirely surprised when I found that type issues simply never arose. My unit tests kept my code on the straight and narrow. I simply didn't need the static type checking that I had depended upon for so many years.




The source is here: Are Dynamic Languages Going to Replace Static Languages?

More and more Java begins to look like a language built on false premises.



Contact us JavaWorld

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5

Featured White Papers


RESEARCH CENTERS: Java Standard Edition | Java Enterprise Edition | Java Micro Edition | Development Tools
About Us | Advertise | Contact Us | Terms of Service/Privacy
Copyright, 2006-2008 Network World, Inc. All rights reserved.