From: Ryan Pavlik <rpav@...>
Date: 2003-04-13T01:15:46+09:00
Subject: Re: Does dynamic typing make it easier to place an object in a container?

On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 22:40:22 +0900
<nathaniel@NOSPAMtalbott.ws> wrote:

> Ryan Pavlik [mailto:rpav@nwlink.com] wrote:
> 
> > This message has gone on far too long already, but I'll address the
> > question in the subject line shortly.  With OOP, as you can refer to
> > an object by a generic parent class, it's really no more difficult
> > in a static language to make a container than in a dynamic one.
> > Either way you can filter your classes to make homogenous containers,
> > or allow heterogenous containers.
> 
> Ahem. I beg to (gently) differ. I program in Ruby and in Java on a
> regular basis, and it is much more difficult to use containers in Java
> than it is in Ruby. For example:
<snip>

Oh, I'd have to agree here.  I was actually referring to implementation,
which is what I thought the original question was about.  (That is,
implementing a generic container in a static language isn't really
significantly harder.)

Usage is a whole different issue.  And Java is another.  ;-)


<snip> 
> Of course, I could always implement my own, smart Collection in Java,
> right? Sure, and implement 20 methods I don't give a rip about. I guess
> my point is that in theory you can say "it's really no more difficult in
> a static language to make a container than in a dynamic one," but it
> sure does seem a lot harder in practice. Sure, Eclipse will generate
> most of that code for me, but I think if you took out the generated
> stuff, it'd still be more than the equivalent Ruby code.

Again, I guess we're looking at the word "make" in a different light.
Generic containers in C++ don't require class-specific functions, but
you still have to do a bit of casting.  That's always required... it's
a static language.  But actually writing the container class is
basically identical.

> On the confusion between dynamic vs. static and weak vs. strong typing,
> I agree that it's easy to get them confused. As I was thinking about it,
> I remembered something about the word dynamic, though: French dynamique,
> from Greek dunamikos, powerful, from dunamis, power, from dunasthai, to
> be able. So when you think of Ruby, think of Strong and Powerful.

I like that. :-)

> Of course, that led me to wonder about the root of static... New Latin
> staticus, relating to weight, from Greek statikos, causing to stand,
> from statos, standing. So one might think of Java and C++ as being
> Strongly Stuck in the Mud from their own Weight ;-).

I like that too. >;-)

-- 
Ryan Pavlik <rpav@users.sf.net>

"My plans are *always* practical! It's the laws of
 physics that get in the way of my success." - 8BT