duck!

[Andrew Wiley]

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Bruno Medeiros
<brunodomedeiros+spam at com.gmail> wrote:

> On 11/11/2010 14:19, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>
>> way in the future. I think dynamic languages are somewhat of a niche
>> (even if a growing one), but not really heading to be mainstream in
>> medium/large scale projects.
>>
>
> Sorry, I actually meant "I think dynamic _typing_ is somewhat of a niche"
> rather than the above. Yes, the two are closely related, but they are not
> the same.
> For example, I wouldn't be surprised if in the future certain
> dynamically-typed languages gain some static-typing capabilities. (like the
> inverse is happening)
>
>
>From reading about this, it seems like what D has is very similar to what
Scala calls "Structural Typing" (see
http://codemonkeyism.com/scala-goodness-structural-typing/). The difference
is that Scala tends to use structural typing with inline type declarations
(although they don't have to be inline). However, the basic concept is the
same, where a class is dynamically checked for compliance with a static
type. Not quite dynamic typing, but definitely related.
If you're after a more accurate description, how would that work?

Andrew Wiley
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20101111/e92bc385/attachment.html>