Community discussion forum

C# 4.0 goes dynamic - a step too far?

• • Reply

  6 months ago

  by JendaPerl

  Jenda Krynicky

  Prague, Czech Republic

  Joined 6 months ago

  Maybe, just maybe, you should find out what does dynamic versus static and strong versus weak type system mean. Strong and static are NOT synonyms! They are orthogonal! Except for the fact that the static type system of languages like C or C++ is so restricted that it simply has to be weak. That it simply has to allow you to escape from the constraints of the type system completely and do things as dangerous as typecasting a void pointer.

  Report abuse
• • Reply

  4 months ago

  by umit123

  umit deneme

  Istanbul, Turkey

  Joined 4 months ago

  Thanks

  Report abuse
• • Reply

  2 months ago

  by cmills2000

  Courtney Mills

  Vancouver, Canada

  Joined 2 months ago

  I agree with your thesis... It makes little sense to go dynamic when 'C#' was designed and works as a strongly typed language.

  On the one hand, I can see why microsoft wants to make the language dynamic, because its conceptually and practically easier for the novice to get started. It took me half a university semester to understand strong typing (ok, not that long but it is difficult to grasp at first).

  On the other hand, the reason I use c# is because it is strongly-typed, which makes your programs much more reliable and predictable. I hated all those stupid runtime errors I would get doing things in dynamically in Perl and Lasso.

  I think this is a problem you get when you have the marketing departments running the show. ASP.NET MVC is the same thing. The popularity of Ruby On Rails forced microsoft to play catch up, but its kind of a regression because it reminds me of the original ASP. Oh well.

  Report abuse