Talk:Dynamic programming language: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:25, 14 June 2006

Revision as of 16:37, 14 June 2006

Line 5:

=== Languages ===

I believe that everybody agrees that

* Compiled C is not dynamic.

* Lisp, Scheme, Dylan, Python, Ruby are dynamic.

What about

* Haskell and OCaml ? After all, they support dynamic programming, with extensions, they can perform compile-time reflexivity, etc.

* Java ? After all, it supports reflexivity and, with extensions, it supports dynamic programming, etc.

* Acute ? It's statically + dynamically typed.

* Self-modifiable assembly language ?

=== Criteria ===

* Dynamic = interpreted ?

* Dynamic = dynamically-typed ?

* Dynamic = check as many things as possible at run-time rather than ahead-of-time (including types and possibly syntax) ?

* Dynamic = no need for type annotations ?

* Dynamic = interactive programming ?

* Dynamic = modifying properties of the language itself at run-time ? (à la SmallTalk)

* Dynamic = run-time read/only introspection ? (à la Python, Ruby)

* Dynamic = run-time read/write introspection ?

* Dynamic = dynamically linked ?

* Dynamic = new and shiny ?

Is there such a thing as '''a dynamic programming language''' or should we say that one language is '''more dynamic''' than another ? I would vote for the second option.

Is there such a thing as '''a dynamic programming language''' or should we say that one ''implementation'' of a language is '''dynamic''' ? I would vote for the second option. After all, iirc, there's an interpreted version of C, with a toplevel and the possibility of adding or replacing functions at run-time. Still, it is the same language.

===Characteristics of dynamic programming languages===

Line 50 ⟶ 52:

==Discussions on Dynamic languages==

===Advantages===