[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
particular).
http://www.mindview.net/WebLog/log-0025
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=4639
> 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.
- Re: reading material?, (continued)
Re: reading material?, Heikki Johannes Junes, 2004/03/23
- Re: reading material?,
Nicolas Sceaux <=
Re: reading material?, Heikki Johannes Junes, 2004/03/24