I took a course not long ago on .Net, and they kept repeating over and
over again: 'everything is a new type'. That was the mantra.
Isn't it ironic that after all their expertise, and with the somewhat
recent surge in popularity of 'scripting' languages with their late
binding and dynamic typing (IIRC) that they have thrown their weight
behind strongly-typed .Net?
Do you think this trend will continue with MS? They claim they 'bet
the company' on .Net, but now they are betting on web services (think
online apps, not SOAP).
I just find it interesting they are (were) going in a very different
direction from the rest of the tech sector. Then again, it *is*
Microsoft.
The phrase "strongly typed" isn't really accurate. These other
languages are _statically_ typed, in that all types are predetermined
at compile-time, but that doesn't necessarily imply that typing is
strong. In Lisp, for instance, a Fixnum value is a Fixnum, and that's
all there is to it. There's no way to interpret a Fixnum value as a
string, as in, say, C (where through pointers and casting, I can
interpret a variable of one type as any other). So while Lisp isn't
statically typed, it's certainly strongly typed and arguably more so
than some statically typed languages. I know your post wasn't aimed
directly at Lisp (what was it aimed at, anyway?) but it's better not to
encourage the myth that "Lisp isn't strongly-typed." It is.
Bill
Bill Atkins wrote:
> The phrase "strongly typed" isn't really accurate. These other
> languages are _statically_ typed, in that all types are predetermined
Yes, I knew I got one of those expressions wrong. I just didn't know
which.
> than some statically typed languages. I know your post wasn't aimed
> directly at Lisp (what was it aimed at, anyway?) but it's better not to
Well, it was just a general comment that I think it is odd that the
more powerful and flexible languages are still dynamically typed with
late binding, yet .Net is statically typed, and I believe early binding
when done at compile time.
Jonathon McKitrick wrote:
> Well, it was just a general comment that I think it is odd that the
> more powerful and flexible languages are still dynamically typed with
> late binding, yet .Net is statically typed, and I believe early binding
> when done at compile time.
Eh. It's a .net design flaw. Not the first, won't be the last.
Bear
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:37:55 -0800, Jonathon McKitrick wrote:
>
> I took a course not long ago on .Net, and they kept repeating over and
> over again: 'everything is a new type'. That was the mantra.
>
> Isn't it ironic that after all their expertise, and with the somewhat
> recent surge in popularity of 'scripting' languages with their late
> binding and dynamic typing (IIRC) that they have thrown their weight
> behind strongly-typed .Net?
>
> Do you think this trend will continue with MS? They claim they 'bet
> the company' on .Net, but now they are betting on web services (think
> online apps, not SOAP).
>
> I just find it interesting they are (were) going in a very different
> direction from the rest of the tech sector. Then again, it *is*
> Microsoft.
Only if you totally ignore the ML/Haskell community. They cover the
whole spectrum: from Basic to .NET. Mircosoft does _sponsor_ quite
some research on strongly typed languages. Iff you belive in automatic
program verification and similar things that's a natural path to
choose.
Cheers Ralf Mattes