My Stuff
Love
Respect
Admiration
- Leo Brodie
- Avi Bryant
- Alan Cooper
- Steve Dekorte
- Stephane Ducasse
- Doug Engelbart
- Eric Evans
- Brian Foote
- Martin Fowler
- Paul Graham
- Dan Ingalls
- Alan Kay
- John McCarthy
- Steve McConnell
- Peter Norvig
- Niall Ross
- Randall Smith
- Gerald Jay Sussman
- David Ungar
- Rebecca Wirfs-Brock
- ...And So Many More...
My Amps
Links
Archives
- 05/01/2003 - 05/31/2003
- 06/01/2003 - 06/30/2003
- 07/01/2003 - 07/31/2003
- 08/01/2003 - 08/31/2003
- 09/01/2003 - 09/30/2003
- 10/01/2003 - 10/31/2003
- 11/01/2003 - 11/30/2003
- 12/01/2003 - 12/31/2003
- 01/01/2004 - 01/31/2004
- 02/01/2004 - 02/29/2004
- 03/01/2004 - 03/31/2004
- 04/01/2004 - 04/30/2004
- 05/01/2004 - 05/31/2004
- 06/01/2004 - 06/30/2004
- 07/01/2004 - 07/31/2004
- 08/01/2004 - 08/31/2004
- 09/01/2004 - 09/30/2004
- 10/01/2004 - 10/31/2004
- 11/01/2004 - 11/30/2004
- 12/01/2004 - 12/31/2004
- 01/01/2005 - 01/31/2005
- 02/01/2005 - 02/28/2005
- 03/01/2005 - 03/31/2005
- 04/01/2005 - 04/30/2005
- 05/01/2005 - 05/31/2005
- 06/01/2005 - 06/30/2005
- 07/01/2005 - 07/31/2005
- 08/01/2005 - 08/31/2005
- 09/01/2005 - 09/30/2005
- 10/01/2005 - 10/31/2005
- 11/01/2005 - 11/30/2005
- 12/01/2005 - 12/31/2005
- 01/01/2006 - 01/31/2006
- 02/01/2006 - 02/28/2006
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
Dynamic vs.Static: More thoughts
Why do static type languages tend to favor more complicated frameworks while dynamic languages prefer easy frameworks? Or maybe it's just me, but I find the frameworks in dynamic languages usually incorporate less code and are easier to understand than their static counterparts. I think it's the mindset. Dynamic developers generally like to be able to change any aspect of their world and don't like shackles. Their frameworks reflect that. Static developers on the other hand want to be protected from themselves and believe that you should protect your code from other malicious developers (look at "Effective Java" for examples of this). So, it makes me wonder if the debate will ever end because of this. It's shackle-less vs. shackled development. The static guys put so much stuff in their frameworks to protect you from yourself, they forget the real problem they are trying to solve(case in point, EJB-entity beans any one? They were to solve persistence, but failed miserably). Give me freedom, give me easy, give me concise, give me dynamic!
Why do static type languages tend to favor more complicated frameworks while dynamic languages prefer easy frameworks? Or maybe it's just me, but I find the frameworks in dynamic languages usually incorporate less code and are easier to understand than their static counterparts. I think it's the mindset. Dynamic developers generally like to be able to change any aspect of their world and don't like shackles. Their frameworks reflect that. Static developers on the other hand want to be protected from themselves and believe that you should protect your code from other malicious developers (look at "Effective Java" for examples of this). So, it makes me wonder if the debate will ever end because of this. It's shackle-less vs. shackled development. The static guys put so much stuff in their frameworks to protect you from yourself, they forget the real problem they are trying to solve(case in point, EJB-entity beans any one? They were to solve persistence, but failed miserably). Give me freedom, give me easy, give me concise, give me dynamic!
Comments