Explore >> Select a destination
|
You are here 
|
blog.jooq.org | ||
| | | | |
programmingmadecomplicated.wordpress.com
|
|
| | | | | There are these things that, depending on your definition, many or all programming languages use: 'types'. There's also a rich mathematical study of types in Type Theory which, along with related disciplines, has many connections to logic and proof. Why? Often, they take the form of explicit 'annotations' to program artefacts, big and small. For... | |
| | | | |
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... | |
| | | | |
nurkiewicz.com
|
|
| | | | | When choosing or learning a new programming language, type system should be your first question. How strict is that language when types don't really match? Will there be a conservative, slow and annoying compiler? Or maybe a fast feedback loop, often resulting in crashes at runtime? And also, is the language runtime trusting you know what you are doing, even if you don't? Or maybe it's babysitting you, making it hard to write fast, low-level code? Believe it or not, I just described static, dynamic, weak and strong typing. | |
| | | | |
codeexplainer.wordpress.com
|
|
| | | I have decided to move my content to a different platform - details to follow very soon. | ||
