Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?
Thu Jan 22 03:49:29 CET 2009
Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno.42.desthuilliers at websiteburo.invalid> writes:
> > In my limited experience with
> > Haskell (statically typed but very high level),
> "dynamic" and "static" were not meant to concern typing here (or at
> least not only typing).
I'm not sure what you mean by those terms then.
> Haskell and MLs are indeed statically typed, but with a powerfull type
> inference system, which gives great support for genericity
> <ot>(hmmm... is that the appropriate word ?)</ot>
I think you mean "polymorphism"; genericity in functional programming
usually means compile time reflection about types. (It means
something different in Java or Ada).
> Now these are functional languages, so the notion of "access
> restriction" is just moot in this context !-)
I'm not sure what you mean by that; Haskell certainly supports access
restrictions, through its type and module systems.
> Ok, I should probably have made clear I was thinking of a hi-level
> dynamic _imperative_ language vs a low-level static _imperative_
> language. FP is quite another world.
I'd say that Python's FP characteristics are an important part of its
More information about the Python-list