Talk:Type detection: Difference between revisions
→safe static checking in Haskell and Java, unsafe static checking in C++, and dynamic checking in Lisp, Scheme, Perl etc
mNo edit summary |
|||
Line 38:
Given that, the text processing context sounds promising, and should probably be more focal than a framing like ''Show a function/procedure which …'' . Perhaps for example, (thinking about Goal 1 above) that is not quite how a declarative language would be used. Better to make no assumptions about language-internal issues, and to frame the task itself.
On Goals 2 and 3 (''demonstrate how languages are similar and different'', & ''learning another approach'') you would need to allow for the differences such as, for example, that between run-time "Type detection" and compiler-driven pattern-matching. Framing it too tightly in terms of "type detection" assumptions would marginalise some languages, and miss the scope for comparing different approaches
(Not easy though, to think of a task which central turns on any of the issues which arise, unless, perhaps, complex data structures are inherently likely to be involved ...)
Finally, on the learning aspect of Goal 3, it would clearly be good to find a task which learners are quite likely to actually encounter and think about
| |||