Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

15
  • Dynamic typing gives you flexibility, strong typing savety. The only purpose I can see so far is saving a declaration (which is not worth it in my opinion)? So what do I miss? Commented Jul 15, 2014 at 5:52
  • 1
    @Lord_Gestalter The primary idea is to allow metaprogramming and code reflection/modification without incurring runtime performance hits. RPython is one example of something similar happening. Commented Jul 15, 2014 at 6:17
  • Simple: If the vision of your fancy new programming language is not inspiration enough in and of itself, then no answer will change that. Commented Jul 15, 2014 at 7:08
  • 1
    Wouldn't compiling down to some statically-typed low level language defeat the perceived purpose of a dynamic language? Why not just make the language statically-typed at that point? E.g. Typed Racket. Commented Jul 15, 2014 at 12:07
  • 1
    @SK-logic Ah, I see. Typed Racket does do some optimization based on typing, but I can see why it doesn't reach its full potential. Still, that's just a design choice from having to interoperate with untyped Racket code. I guess I'm just confused as to why anyone would go to all the trouble of whole program compilation and still make the language dynamic. You're losing all the late binding and monkeypatching that people like to use dynamic languages and yet you're not getting any of the benefits of static typing in exchange. Commented Jul 15, 2014 at 12:49