Dare’s Holy Grail vs. Rory’s “Huh?”
In his post, Dare demonstrates how having dynamically typed properties would make it easier (and more elegant) for developers to write code vs. doing the same thing in a statically typed language. He then laments that there is no system today that would combine both strongly and dynamically typed features.
Consider the following code fragment (complete code and results of its execution can be seen here):
var entry = new entryType("Happy New Year!", "1/1/2004");
entry.subject = new typedXmlElement("Happy New Year, Yay!", "xs:string", "dc");
entry.requireModeration = true;
entry.subject.longDesc = new typedXmlElement("Common holiday with gifts and stuff", "xs:string", "myns");
entry.subject.longDesc.modifiedOn = new Date();
// write complete XML of this entry
var xml = entry.serialize();
In my humble opinion, the beauty of dynamic types is that it elevates a type instance to the level of a type and brings the sense of evolution to type. One can see it as bringing more “realism“ to the OOP: I am an instance of a Person, but, though sharing the same traits, a generic Person and I are different — I am a semantic singleton, a one-of-a-kind type-and-instance-in-one. As I evolve, I gain (or lose) new methods and properties, yet remain the same instance that I was born.
I may be wrong (or under-educated), but it seem that SOA, the “next big thing“ looming on the horizon, would benefit from dynamically and strongly typed language of some kind.