I'm in the process of reading this, and even though I haven't finished yet, it has already proven itself as a "must read" as a great overview of the issue of static versus dynamic typing. (clarification: I finished the actual article, but I am following each link in turn and reading those as well. That is what is taking me so long. I think the article itself, along with following and reading the links, is what makes this a "must read".)
Quote
Angle Brackets and Curly Braces
Programming with "Duh" Typing
by Bill Venners
July 6, 2007
Summary
To what extent does the productivity of dynamic languages come from the lack of typed variables versus the reduction in "finger typing" required when you don't have to declare the types? The technique of type inferencing in static languages may shed new light on this old debate.
Over the years here at Artima we've had a number of debates and discussions about static versus dynamic typing. Here are a few:
* Are Dynamic Languages Going to Replace Static Languages?, discussion of a weblog post by Robert C. Martin.
* Typing: Strong vs. Weak, Static vs. Dynamic, discussion of a weblog post by Aahz.
* Strong versus Weak Typing, discussion of an interview with Python's creator Guido van Rossum.
* Implicit versus Explicit Dynamic Typing, discussion of a weblog post by Christopher Diggins.
* To type or not to type, discussion of a weblog post by Jim Waldo,
* Use the Best Tool for the Job, discussion of a short article by a younger me.
















- carpe noctem