Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

4
  • This is a very interesting answer. For me this is a totally new coincept. I am a Delphi developer (so somehow facing the same problems that java/c# developers face), but I am interested in learning new things. May you please shed some more light (maybe giving me a reference to a link) on " the patterns are a good way to solve some problems inherent to languages without higher-order constructs"? Thanks. Commented Nov 2, 2010 at 13:44
  • @user5396: A classic one is by Peter Norvig: norvig.com/design-patterns, which is by the way 12 years old. According to him, 16 of 23 patterns in the GoF book are much simpler in dynamic languages. I would recommend reading Practical Common Lisp (available at gigamonkeys.com/book) and maybe Higher Order Perl (hop.perl.plover.com) to see what a proper dynamic language is capable of. Commented Nov 2, 2010 at 14:14
  • Thanks for the links. My first feeling is that if one doesn't need super control of algorithm details it makes more sense to develop with these kinds of languages. I can imagine that the current scenario is too many people using Java/c#/Delphi while they could be more productive in Python and Co. Am I correct? Commented Nov 2, 2010 at 15:55
  • @user5396: depends a bit on people's training, since if they are trained to a Java mindset, they'd probably be less productive with e.g. Python, producing anti-pythonical solutions. I don't fully understand what you've meant by "super control of algorithm", but there should be no controlling problems with either programming language. Commented Nov 3, 2010 at 14:55