From: Rik Hemsley <rik@...>
Date: 2001-12-11T08:48:42+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:28153] Re: The benefits of dynamic typing?

On Monday 10 December 2001 8:00 pm, you wrote:

> In a static OO language (Java, C++) variables have to hold objects of a
> certain type (which tends to lead to all kinds of casting which sort of
> negates the advantages of compile-time type checking).  In a dynamic OO
> language like Ruby or Smalltalk all that is required is that an object
> respond to a certain method.

I think the main problem with static typing is that it's so hard to enforce
when writing a compiler.

As for casting, well, I don't find myself using reinterpret_cast<> in C++
very often, so I wouldn't say that casting 'negates the advantages of 
compile-time type checking.' Casting is quite legitimate in some cases,
and it can usually be made safe, though if you look at the recent discussions 
on gcc's dynamic_cast, you can see how hard it is to implement this and make 
it work properly with things like runtime loaded modules.

Rik