[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "static" declaration
Reginald Braithwaite-Lee <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I think this strikes at the heart of "lightweight" vs. "heavyweight"
> langauges. One of the things I look for in a lightweight langauge is
> the freedom to develop my own idioms and style.
I don't think that's a characteristic of a lightweight language:
python is an example of a lightweight language trying to ensure common
style and idioms.
> However, there's a "heavy" price to pay for standards. It's difficult
> to use another paradigm for those situations where the designer's
> concepts do not fit the situation. Look at the hacks (I intend this
> word in a complimentary sense) people have put together for Design by
Hum, i was mainly thinking about syntax, but here it's more like a mix
of reflexivity/syntax/dynamic features.
In that case I agree with you, lightweight languages have many
advantages for this.
But IMO that doesn't mean a common style can't be achieved (eg: OO in
perl is very flexible, but most people use the same style)
The drawbacks of this flexibility is the difficulty to enforce things
at compile time (eg: compare the poor pychecker with a java compiler)