Comments on: The Dynamic Language Advantage: A Concrete Example

By: Stan

Stan — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 22:46:18 +0000

informative post, keep it up.,

By: Grant

Grant — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 12:12:48 +0000

I love the great insight!,

By: WSDAC#7 - SCRUM in 90 minutes - Service Endpoint

WSDAC#7 - SCRUM in 90 minutes - Service Endpoint — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 04:02:54 +0000

[...] A concrete example of The Dynamic Language Advantage [...]

By: Adam Kahtava

Adam Kahtava — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:55:27 +0000

@Gabriel,

Agreed, in order to make a compelling comparison of dynamic vs static languages I think we need to dig into the application level. Then we could contrast the different typing systems, object manipulation, and inheritance mechanisms, but since both types of languages are suited for different problem domains it would be difficult to do the comparison.

By: Gabriel C.

Gabriel C. — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:18:19 +0000

But the use “method missing” is a common Ruby pattern for metaprogramming… is pretty much a straightforward example of Ruby use

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:59:46 +0000

Honestly I think this is a not so good example. First of all using exceptions for flow normal control is not such a great idea. Then you hardcode database schema information in method names (which don’t exist).
At this point you don’t have any advantage over writing plain SQL and that would be a faster solution. Generating the methods to access the DB over and over again in a busy application is a performance nightmare. No wonder Rails applications have scalability issues (i hear).
In the end comes the problem of readability and maintainability. The logic is not in the proper method, it gets generated at runtime (debug thrill?) and it is not so easy to read. Basically it hides the intent.
On the other hand congratulations for trying to find advantages to dynamic languages. Not many people even try to justify their believes.

By: Greg M

Greg M — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:37:09 +0000

@Adam: When you know there are potholes you’re able to avoid them, but that doesn’t make it a good road. Even experienced drivers will still go more slowly and have less attention to spare for larger-scale navigation.

By: Adam Kahtava

Adam Kahtava — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:41:02 +0000

@Stephan, I am aware of those cases, I was generalizing that the majority of JavaScript is interpreted not compiled – thanks for the correction.

By: Stephan Schmidt

Stephan Schmidt — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:35:31 +0000

@Adam: BTW Javascript is somtimes interpreted (last generation browsers), sometimes compiled (e.g. Rhino) and somtimes just-in-time compiled (e.g. SquirrelFish, Tamarin).

Peace
-stephan

By: Adam Kahtava

Adam Kahtava — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:43:33 +0000

@Greg Truthiness is a fundamental part of the language. The intent could be hidden if you don’t understand the language.

Sure, any monkey can hack their way to comprehension, but developers should understand the fundamentals of the language they’re using before they start reading and maintain code.

BTW JavaScript is interpreted (not compiled).