[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: reading material?

From: Nicolas Sceaux
Subject: Re: reading material?
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:28:44 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)

Wed, 24 Mar 2004 02:46:04 +0200 (EET), Heikki a dit : 

 > For me, it looks like the first fundamental difference between these two  
 > syntaxes is that in C++ you have to be extremely careful with type and  
 > inheritance, whereas in Scheme (seems like) you do not usually need to care. 

This static/dynamically typed issue have been discussed by some
eminent C++/Java gurus, such as Bruce Eckel or Robert Martin, who seem
to advocate the use of dynamically typed languages now (Python in

 > The second fundamental difference is between an user and the language. Since 
 > Scheme is interpreted, the behavior of the program (say LilyPond) can be  
 > changed dynamically. This is not the case with C(++), since the structure of 
 > a  
 > compiled program becomes changed only after recompiling. Therefore, an  
 > interpreted language, like Scheme, is the only choice in the user end in 
 > order  
 > to satisfy the needs of a high-level (or low-level -- I mix these always)  
 > language.  

Just to bring a correction:
interpreted/compiled implementation is orthogonal dynamic/static
programs. That's the second that you are refering to, it seems. guile
scheme is interpreted only, but it could have had a compiler and not
lose its dynamicity. With other implementations, you can compile files
or functions on purpose, during run-time.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]