[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Robert Martin on the Relevance and Future of Scripting and Dynamic Languages
"David Simmons" <David.Simmons@smallscript.com> writes:
> I was recently given a reference to the following article "Talk to
> programming guru Robert Martin about his vision for the next decade of
> programming" from March of this year.
> I was curious whether people here share a similar opinion?
Well, am I the only one who think this is someone saying rubbish! :
: If you have a program with N modules, then to compile just one of them
: you may have to read in all N header files. With a little thought
: you'll realize that this means that compile time goes up with the
: square of the number of modules
is he kidding or what? Or maybe he's talking about the special case of
C++ where header files have to parsed again and again (though i've
heard about pre-compiled headers...)
: It is much easier to change a program written in a dynamically typed
: language than it is to change a program written in a type-safe
saying this in 2002 without even mentioning type inference shows a
lack of knowledge in this area.
i don't type inference is the ultimate solution, but at least don't
boast dynamic typing as the only alternative to explicit static
: [a lot of talking about the compilation time in C++ & Java]
- I do agree the C++ (esp. g++) compilation time is major drawback.
There could (?) be a C++ interpreter that would have the compilation
time of dynamic languages, but C++ is not well adapted for this (you
get the burden of an explictly typed language with little reflexivity,
no GC, and a slow execution time)
- try ocaml, the bytecode compiler is *very* fast. It's one of the
best ratio runtime-speed on compilation-time
- he's not talking about the runtime cost that no compilation implies
- Java compilation can be fast! (gcj is)
(Java has few features implying a high compilation time,
esp. compared to C++)
: we write unit tests for absolutely everything
compilation is costly but unit tests aren't??
i know some projects with nice tests that are not run often enough
because their cost is comparable with C++ compilation time. the net
result is that tests are useful, but not the panacea.
: Keep an eye on languages like Python, Ruby, and Smalltalk. They are
: likely to become extremely important.
cool, a part that i agree with ;p
maybe these kind of articles *must* the
show-only-one-side-of-the-issue kind so that people read them?
but please, I don't think this is LL1 stuff :)