[OT] - was Re: Task Scheduling
Michael L Torrie
torriem at chem.byu.edu
Wed Jan 25 16:13:30 MST 2006
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 15:23 -0700, Bryan Sant wrote:
> I hardly type at all, the IDE does all the work for me.
If that much busy-work is required to do tasks, then lots of code
generation, although a convenience, represents a deficiency in the
language, in my opinion.
Now most languages probably do though.
> So long as it is small enough for a single person or small group to
> maintain. For larger projects, type-safety and mature frameworks save
> time and reduce errors. The same effect *could* be achieved by
> asserting the correctness of parameters by a dynamic language, but now
> you've just impacted run-time performance and your productivity just
> went out the window.
I think Smalltalk effectively proved that a dynamic weak types can be
just as safe, if not safer, than strong static types. So this argument
is really fallacious. As for performance, well, static typing does have
> Well there you have it. The undeniable proof we've all been waiting for :-).
I agree. When I program in Java and consume large amounts of Ibuprofen
I also have less headaches.
More information about the PLUG