From: Joel VanderWerf <vjoel@...>
Date: 2003-03-19T15:45:42+09:00
Subject: Re: XML too hard (YAML opportunity?)

jbritt@ruby-doc.org wrote:
> jbritt@ruby-doc.org wrote:
> 
> 
>>YAML has its place, though personally I haven't had a need for
> 
> a statically-typed markup language (and I admit I still haven't
> 
>>managed to finish reading the spec). But it can't (so far, at
> 
> least) stand in for XML; comparisons between the two are apples and
> 
>>oranges.
> 
> What does statically typed mean here?
> 
> 
> I mean the data carries with it instructions on how it is to be processed.
> It says "Process me as a String," or, "Process me as a Hash."

Funny, that's almost exactly how I would define _dynamically_ typed. 
"Instructions on how the data is to be processed" are carried with the 
data in dynamically typed languages. In statically typed languages they 
are carried with the variable that refers to the data.

It sounds like you would say that Ruby is statically typed because 
whenever you introduce a new object, you have to say what class it is. 
But then C is dynamically typed because you can take an arbitrary byte 
string and cast it however you want!

But whatever we call it, separating application logic from data can be a 
good idea, as you say.