Explore >> Select a destination
|
You are here 
|
www.ccampo.me | ||
| | | | |
journal.infinitenegativeutility.com
|
|
| | | | | Something I've felt for a long time is that structural types are underused and underappreciated in modern programming languages. They... | |
| | | | |
www.honeybadger.io
|
|
| | | | | Ruby's flexibility has always been both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. You can write amazingly expressive programs. You can also slip and break them in amazingly expressive ways. RBS is a new type an... | |
| | | | |
www.baturin.org
|
|
| | | | | ||
| | | | |
chadaustin.me
|
|
| | | This may be the only time I weigh in on the static vs. dynamic typing discussion. Each side has its extreme proponents, and people differ in their ability and desire to work in systems with implicit invariants. Many years ago, back when Java and C++ were the Mainstream Languages and Python was the shiny new up-and-comer, I read Bruce Eckel's arguments in support of dynamically typed languages, and some of the nonobvious (at the time) ways you can get more done at higher quality in a more flexible languag... | ||
