Robert A. Uhl

Chuck at nothing happens writes that the dynamic/static computer language controversy is more than a little artificial. I gotta be honest — I think that dynamic languages are more useful for ‘exploring’ code before one knows what one needs to do (kinda like an artist’s pencils). But I understand that some of the new static-ish languages offer some features like type-inferencing which give one a lot more latitude to experiment; perhaps they’d be good in that case.

Then of course there’s the whole issue of what one means by dynamic and static …

04 February 2018: updated URLs