Re: Truly later thinking...Honey, grab me another beer

[Joe Pluta <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Walden H. Leverich wrote:
> As for the need for a language to be compiled and strongly typed to be
> enterprise, I'd disagree with that. There are many things that dynamic
> languages bring to the table that are not only acceptable in enterprise,
> but often beneficial.
However, that doesn't make it a blanket recommendation for loosely typed 
languages in the enterprise.  It means that there may be some specific 
jobs where loosely typed languages can help, but hardly enough to 
replace strongly typed languages with loosely typed.

> The most obvious example of this would be the
> ability to inject code at runtime, often to solve a complex problem with
> a large number of variables.
>   
Since my background is in enterprise systems, I've got some relevant 
perspective on this.  Off the top of my head, I can't name a single 
situation where this is applicable in a standard enterprise system.  
That's not to say it's never applicable, just that I don't see it.  
Perhaps in some data mining applications?  Let's come up with something 
concrete that, say, a furniture manufacturer would use on a regular 
basis and see how this whole loose/strong typing issue plays out.

Because in my mind, the benefits of strongly typed languages win out in 
the vast majority of cases in the enterprise world.  But let's test my 
hypothesis!

Joe