Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
bug in "developing applications with objective caml" (english translation)
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Geoff Wozniak <geoff@w...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: some comments on ocaml{lex,yacc} from a novice's POV
Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com> writes:

> On Monday 04 April 2005 06:44, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 13:42:03 +1000 (EST)
>> > isn't that nice?!?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Not if it isn't statically checked.
>

I take issue with this statement, not because of some personal vendetta,
but because it dismisses some very useful tools.

When I am developing software, I often find that at the beginning, static
typing is a burden that I would rather not be bothered with for the simple
reason that I don't know what types are to be used.  Later in development,
once I know more about my problem space, I will migrate to using some
language that uses a static (preferably strong) type system.

Saying some programming tool isn't nice because it isn't "statically
checked" is short-sighted and I'd rather not see a novice come away with
the impression that if a language/tool is not statically checked, it's
somehow inferior.

-- 
Geoff Wozniak