Let me rephrase. Dynamic languages aren't conductive to a subset of re-factoring - the cases which involve renaming identifiers or changing types throughout the project.
They invented those too. Indeed they're listed at the link I provided.
It seems strange to argue that what gave rise to a thing isn't "conducive" to it. Actually, it's more than strange, it's a contradiction in terms: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conducive.
Comments
Dynamic languages aren't conductive to re-factoring
How come they invented it, then?
http://st-www.cs.illinois.edu/users/brant/Refactory/Refactor...
Let me rephrase. Dynamic languages aren't conductive to a subset of re-factoring - the cases which involve renaming identifiers or changing types throughout the project.
They invented those too. Indeed they're listed at the link I provided.
It seems strange to argue that what gave rise to a thing isn't "conducive" to it. Actually, it's more than strange, it's a contradiction in terms: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conducive.