I guess Ruby is Libertarian... Typed but not strongly typed...
--
Peace. commerce, and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances
with none.
Thomas Jefferson
---- Edward Sumerfield <esumerfd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/31/06, Jim Weirich <jim.weirich@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 10/30/06, Edward Sumerfield <esumerfd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I am not suggesting that Republicans like strongly typed languages,
> > > just that there are lots of common characteristics between those that
> > > do and those that don't.
> >
> > Oh wow! If I didn't like the strong typing/checked exception
> > generalization, you can imangine my reaction to the above. MUST RESIST!
> >
> > If you want to see the canonical work on assigning politcal views based
> > upon OO design beliefs, check out comp.object circa 1998 when Eliot declared
> > anyone who didn't create comprehensive, fully ellaborated, graphical ( e.g.
> > UML) designs before starting coding must be represive right-wingers.
>
> I new that analogy would get me in trouble. I didn't resist though.
>
> My intention was analogy, not comparison. A is to B as C is to D but A
> and B are not comparable to C or D. Two exclusive sets, complete unto
> themselves but unrelated.
>
> I wonder if you have heard the argument that says that two opposing
> views tend to diverge over time because of the human tendency to
> overly express their perspectives to achieve convincing arguments.
> This idea came out of a historical look at the political divide and
> how it has changed. Anyway, thats why the analogy struck me as
> appropriate.
>
> > > My thought was that the problem exists within the Java community
> > > alone, and then is also addressed in conversations about whether we
> > > should use alternative languages.
> >
> > I agree that the problem exists in Java alone. That's why I objected to the
> > broad generalization of the statement. The original was:
> >
> > You will tend to find that people that like strongly
> > typed languages also like checked exceptions, where as those who
> > prefer dynamically typed languages tend toward the unchecked variety.
>
> I agree with your disagreement, I wonder if my perception more tightly
> correlates in the Java community and is less relevant elsewhere.
> Perhaps we could increased the correlation by limiting our set to
> those Java programmers that have not experienced other languages. Of
> coarse, this line of thought leads me to the unavoidable conclusion
> that my ideal set is those few of people that I have met and agree
> with the statement :)
>
> > First it is a false dicotomy. Dynamically typed is not the opposite of
> > strongly typed, but of statically typed. Second, you will find broad
> > disagreement amoung those who favor statically typed languages on value of
> > checked exceptions.
>
> Having been lucky enough to hear your presentation on typing
> techniques a few times, I continue to have to admit to not having the
> best grasp of each of the facets. I was originally going to use the
> "strong" and "loose" terms but you have scolded me on those terms in
> past discussions. I learn, but not well.
>
> One interesting result from this thread is that we have no posts that
> strongly argue for the use of checked exceptions everywhere. Mark
> mentioned that a checked exception should be used when "calling code
> can make a recovery from the failure" which I interpret as a
> semi-convinced statement.
>
> Not sure what our list membership is now (over 1000?), obviously we
> have a lot of shy lurkers out there but I was expecting a more
> categorical divide on this point.
>
> Ed "the inciter" Sumerfield
>
> ---------
> You may unsubscribe from this mailing list
> by sending a blank email addressed to:
> users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> --
> Find additional help by sending a blank email
> addressed to:
> users-help@xxxxxxxxxx
>
|