-
as seen on Programmers
- Search for 'Programmers'
I've been using python for a few days now and I think I understand the difference between dynamic and static typing. What I don't understand is why it's useful. I keep hearing about its "flexibility" but it seems like it just moves a bunch of compile time checks to runtime, which means more unit tests…
>>> More
-
as seen on Stack Overflow
- Search for 'Stack Overflow'
In my current job I'm building a suite of Perl scripts that depend heavily on objects. (using Perl's bless() on a Hash to get as close to OO as possible)
Now, for lack of a better way of putting this, most programmers at my company aren't very smart. Worse, they don't like reading documentation…
>>> More
-
as seen on Stack Overflow
- Search for 'Stack Overflow'
Aye it's been done a million times before, but damnit I want to do it again. I'm writing a simple Matrix Library for C++ with the intention of doing it right. I've come across something that's fairly obvious in mathematics, but not so obvious to a strongly typed system -- the fact that a 1x1 matrix…
>>> More
-
as seen on Programmers
- Search for 'Programmers'
I've been using python for a few days now and I think I understand the difference between dynamic and static typing. What I don't understand is under what circumstances it would be preferred. It is flexible and readable, but at the expense of more runtime checks and additional required unit testing…
>>> More
-
as seen on Programmers
- Search for 'Programmers'
The proponents of functional programming languages assert that functional programming makes it easier to reason about code. Those in favor of statically typed languages say that their compilers catch enough errors to make up for the additional complexity of type systems. But everything I read on these…
>>> More
