Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
Line 28:
* 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.
'''I have a better suggestion:''' A '''dynamic programming language''' is one that supports rapid development cycles: rapid modification of code and designs, etc. Also, such languages are not "new and shiny"; they have been with us since the 1960's.
=== Interpretation ===
Line 49 ⟶ 51:
To the best of my knowledge, no dynamic language needs type annotations -- although some can use them. Although [[OCaml]] is usually considered static by its fans and detractors, it doesn't need type annotations either. What do we conclude of this ? [[User:Yoric|Yoric]] 16:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
=Characteristics of dynamic programming languages=
| |||