[Oberon] Functional programming and Oberon

[Lars]

On Sat, December 17, 2016 6:53 pm, Douglas G Danforth wrote:
> On 12/17/2016 5:35 AM, Richard Hable wrote:
>
>> There is no generic Object type in Oberon (and Trankvila); for good
>> reasons! Using such a "garbage" type takes away the advantages of static
>>  typing.
>>
>> And in both solutions a lot of type casts at runtime would be
>> necessary.
> A quick skim of what you wrote seemed reasonable.  But then on a closer
> look I ask "what is a static type?"  Something is either a type or its not.
> There
> is no concept of "static" or "dynamic" associated with "TYPE".  Instances
> of a type can indeed be static or dynamic but the "TYPE" is not.

The whole dynamic typing joke started in Lisp.... Or whatever language
came before Lisp that lisp copied and stole from.

It's a bird, it's an airplane, wait, no, it's.... anything you want it to
be..

http://www.win-vector.com/blog/2012/02/why-i-dont-like-dynamic-typing/

"One of the supposed advantages of dynamically typed languages is that
'everything is a macro'."

Or in other words: everything is retarded. Or, everything is a silly buggy
joke. Or, everything is a clever trick that makes all programs unreadable
and un-understandable.

Quote:

"The problem is: it is a bigger responsibility to write a *correct* macro"

Aside:
I feel your pain with this being an Oberon list and not a discussion list
for many programming languages. However, many programming languages
intersect and share similarities and collide with each other, so obviously
some languages will creep in to the discussion as programming languages
can learn from each other and steal from each other.