<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: C# To Support Dynamic Typing</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pmougin.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/c-to-support-dynamic-typing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pmougin.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/c-to-support-dynamic-typing/</link>
	<description>Interactive Cocoa</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:56:17 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=MU</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Troy Brumley</title>
		<link>http://pmougin.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/c-to-support-dynamic-typing/#comment-70</link>
		<dc:creator>Troy Brumley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2008 01:36:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pmougin.wordpress.com/?p=128#comment-70</guid>
		<description>Why not just use VB.NET with Option Strict Off?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why not just use VB.NET with Option Strict Off?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ddoctor</title>
		<link>http://pmougin.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/c-to-support-dynamic-typing/#comment-63</link>
		<dc:creator>ddoctor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:38:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pmougin.wordpress.com/?p=128#comment-63</guid>
		<description>This a tremendous source of simplicity and power... and can make for some very elegant solutions. Add to this, the ability to add methods run-time (like javascript).

However, this power comes at a cost. If you call a method which does not exist, it would be a run-time error, not a compile-time error. This isn't a big deal for interpreted languages - they don't have a compile-time. However, the ability to find these errors before the code is run is a key benefit of compiled code.

Like most things in software engineering, there is a tradeoff.

I think having it optional is a good idea. You can normally take advantage of the compile-time method existence checks... but if you have a specific solution which would benefit from dynamic typing, that technique is still available.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This a tremendous source of simplicity and power&#8230; and can make for some very elegant solutions. Add to this, the ability to add methods run-time (like javascript).</p>
<p>However, this power comes at a cost. If you call a method which does not exist, it would be a run-time error, not a compile-time error. This isn&#8217;t a big deal for interpreted languages - they don&#8217;t have a compile-time. However, the ability to find these errors before the code is run is a key benefit of compiled code.</p>
<p>Like most things in software engineering, there is a tradeoff.</p>
<p>I think having it optional is a good idea. You can normally take advantage of the compile-time method existence checks&#8230; but if you have a specific solution which would benefit from dynamic typing, that technique is still available.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: grrrr</title>
		<link>http://pmougin.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/c-to-support-dynamic-typing/#comment-62</link>
		<dc:creator>grrrr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:30:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pmougin.wordpress.com/?p=128#comment-62</guid>
		<description>An other maybe better option is like how scala does this
http://neilbartlett.name/blog/2007/09/13/statically-checked-duck-typing-in-scala/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An other maybe better option is like how scala does this<br />
<a href="http://neilbartlett.name/blog/2007/09/13/statically-checked-duck-typing-in-scala/" rel="nofollow">http://neilbartlett.name/blog/2007/09/13/statically-checked-duck-typing-in-scala/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
