On 12/13/2010 5:20 PM, Warren Young wrote:
>
>> Strictness is a *feature*. Especially for someone who wants to
>> initially learn programming.
>
> The OP already tried that, with Java, and didn't like it.
>
> The argument's bogus anyway. Many experienced programmers want to teach
> strictness from the start, apparently without considering how many of
> their peers started with a non-strict language. BASIC, shell,
> JavaScript, PHP...classic beginner languages each, and probably all with
> bigger installed bases than any other interpreted language mentioned in
> this thread. Dijkstra's assertion that such languages "...mentally
> mutilate [programmers] beyond hope of regeneration..." is disproven by
> decades of experience.
But more to the point, real world values don't fit theoretical static
typing concepts. If you are interacting with humans or things humans
read and type, you might as well let a language with dynamic typing deal
with it for you (but dynamic vs. static isn't really the same as strict
vs. weak anyway).
> I'm assuming you don't wish to argue that the vast majority of
> programmers working today are mental cripples.
I doubt if there are a lot that can simultaneously think in procedural
and object concepts, though. Someone who learns that code and data are
different things and that data is not to be trusted will have a hard
time dealing with objects where the only way to access data is to
execute code associated with it.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com