Unofficial wish list status.(Jul 2008)

[Sean Kelly]

== Quote from Yigal Chripun (yigal100 at gmail.com)'s article
> Sean Kelly wrote:
> > Yigal Chripun wrote:
> >> superdan wrote:
> >>>
> >>> good language design is not about the kitchen sink as much as
> >>> harmoniously accommodating multiple styles. nobody has shown that
> >>> that can't be done.
> >>
> >> Since a language is a compromise that's only true to an extent. Some
> >> features are conflicting and you cannot design a language with all
> >> features because of that. You cannot design a language both static and
> >> dynamic ( At least to my knowledge ) since these two approaches are
> >> conflicting designs. And both ways have cons and pros. Can you design a
> >> language with the benefits of both, without the drawbacks of both?
> >
> > Java is a statically typed, dynamic language.  So it can be done, though
> > I'm sure people have varying opinions about the benefits of this
> > approach :-)
>
> I meant statically typed vs. dynamically typed. and you cannot have
> both. I do not understand what you mean with your Java example.

I suppose I should have been more clear.  Java is statically typed but
dynamically bound.  Pretty uncommon for a pure OO language.


Sean