Design Patterns in Dynamic Languages?
By Robert Sayre under Languages on 12. July 2005Peter Norvig: 16 of 23 patterns have qualitatively simpler implementation in Lisp or Dylan than in C++ for at least some uses of each pattern.
A few of the 16 patterns Norvig counts rely on a fluid macro facility like those found in various Lisps, but Python, Ruby, Perl, etc., still do very well on those patterns rendered useless by first-class functions, dynamic typing, and other niceties.
Freedom vs. Safety [@lesscode.org]:
[…] The advocates of freedom languages tend to talk first about the speed and efficiency of the individual programmer. They discuss the expressive power of different constructs and focus on all the powerful features that the safety languages lack. They point out complex patterns and show off twenty-line systems that do the same thing. They talk more about the ease or purity of things than the safety of things. They are dismissive of static-type-safety and compile-time validation in general. […]
pingback at 25. August 2005