|
|
|
|
|
|
by kazinator
3675 days ago
|
|
|
And, here we go: dug up this gem from elsewhere in this comment tree: > A "dynamic" type system isn't actually a type system. "<foo-berly> type" isn't "type". Use my definition, god damn it! "Type" really refers to "<bar-istic> type". (Dynamic is scary, so scare quotes are fitting, by the way). |
|
|