Are dynamic languages at disadvantage for agile development?
From what I’ve read agile development often involves refactoring or reverse engineering code into diagrams. Of course there is much more than that, but if we consider the practices that rely on these two methods, are dynamically typed languages at disadvantage?
What functionality does dynamic typing allow? [closed]
Want to improve this post? Provide detailed answers to this question, including citations and an explanation of why your answer is correct. Answers without enough detail may be edited or deleted. Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers. Closed 9 years ago. Locked. This question and its answers […]
Is Haskell’s type system formally equivalent to Java’s? [closed]
Closed 9 years ago.
Why does the .Net world seem to embrace magic strings instead of staticly typed alternatives?
So, I work in .Net. I make open source projects in .Net. One of my biggest problems with it isn’t necessariyl with .Net, but with the community and frameworks around it. It seems everywhere that magical naming schemes and strings is treated as the best way to do everything. Bold statement, but look at it:
In Java, would you sacrifice type safety for a nicer programming interface
When and why would you generally sacrifice typesafety for a nicer programming interface?
Formal definition of “concepts / type system” for parametric types – Where to start?
I would be interested in formally defining (and consequently demonstrating) a “type system” for, well, a type system. More specifically, I would like to explore the idea of what C++ calls concepts for my bachelor’s thesis. How would one go about defining such system (formally) ? It’s basically a meta-language for generic programming I suppose, but all the material I’ve found so far is basically bound to syntax of a specific programming language.
Formal definition of “concepts / type system” for parametric types – Where to start?
I would be interested in formally defining (and consequently demonstrating) a “type system” for, well, a type system. More specifically, I would like to explore the idea of what C++ calls concepts for my bachelor’s thesis. How would one go about defining such system (formally) ? It’s basically a meta-language for generic programming I suppose, but all the material I’ve found so far is basically bound to syntax of a specific programming language.
Can compilers check whether certain axioms hold for a user defined type?
Suppose the following type is defined (C++ syntax, can be conceptually applied to any statically typed language.)
Can compilers check whether certain axioms hold for a user defined type?
Suppose the following type is defined (C++ syntax, can be conceptually applied to any statically typed language.)
Can compilers check whether certain axioms hold for a user defined type?
Suppose the following type is defined (C++ syntax, can be conceptually applied to any statically typed language.)