Explore >> Select a destination
|
You are here 
|
yotam.net | ||
| | | | |
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. | |
| | | | |
blog.libove.org
|
|
| | | | | [AI summary] The author describes the creation of a programming language called Chromahack, which interprets strings as programs to generate visual art inspired by hacker aesthetics, with implementation details and future plans for animation and genetic algorithm-based program generation. | |
| | | | |
pointersgonewild.com
|
|
| | | | | Static vs Dynamic: Why not Both? | |
| | | | |
existentialtype.wordpress.com
|
|
| | | While reviewing some of the comments on my post about parallelism and concurrency, I noticed that the great fallacy about dynamic and static languages continues to hold people in its thrall. So, in the same "everything you know is wrong" spirit, let me try to set this straight: a dynamic language is a straightjacketed static | ||
