This is just a coincidence, however. Static typing is not where Java fails; Java fails because the language lacks key abstractions and is very verbose as a result. There are plenty of statically-typed languages that are as concise as Perl/Python/Ruby; Haskell immediately comes to mind. (Scala is also good, and compatible with your existing Java.)
Java is an advantage for the corporate world because it lets them look for products and services by filtering on a single word. This advantage has made it very popular.
I entirely agree, OCaml is a particularly fun one for me. I suppose my word choice should have been better, but "dynamic language" was a fairly lazy and easy choice to contrast against big, bad Java.
Yes. This is yet another post against static typing, that does not compare against the best languages the static typing world has to offer. Let's compare with a type-inferencing Hindley-Milner-based language.
Comments
This is just a coincidence, however. Static typing is not where Java fails; Java fails because the language lacks key abstractions and is very verbose as a result. There are plenty of statically-typed languages that are as concise as Perl/Python/Ruby; Haskell immediately comes to mind. (Scala is also good, and compatible with your existing Java.)
Java is an advantage for the corporate world because it lets them look for products and services by filtering on a single word. This advantage has made it very popular.
I entirely agree, OCaml is a particularly fun one for me. I suppose my word choice should have been better, but "dynamic language" was a fairly lazy and easy choice to contrast against big, bad Java.
Yes. This is yet another post against static typing, that does not compare against the best languages the static typing world has to offer. Let's compare with a type-inferencing Hindley-Milner-based language.