[drb91]

Ok, type bound. You can still easily pass around data whose type is not concretely defined at the compilation step. Unless you’re arguing that the dynamic type is actually static, in which case this whole conversation seems semantically pointless.

[EugeneOZ]

2 hours ago I answered it already. If you're another person who wants to convince me that Rust has same thing as Dart's "dynamic" type, then please make my code example to compile (without modifications, for literally ANY type, as in Dart) and I will say I was wrong.

[drb91]

Dart type or rust type? They refer to different things, which is the source of the confusion, but they're both strongly typed.

In any case, you're moving the goal post from "concrete type at compile time" to "can represent any type", which is inherently going to be specific to how the language defines types. This is not an especially useful type of dynamic representation so I'm not sure why it would be desirable.

[EugeneOZ]

There is no confusion. Rust doesn't have dynamic type and Dart does. That's it.

Any talks about special traits in Rust are offtopic, while code I wrote as example can't be compiled in Rust and can perfectly work in Dart.

I wasn't trying to argue about words or terms, I was trying to say the gist: Dart has dynamic type, so you can send to your function any type and this function will just use it, without any downcasting - language will take care about it; and Rust doesn't have such type: you can't even compile code which is trying to work with variables like you can do in dynamic languages.

But then all of that useless arguing... It's really funny when I see how people are trying to prove that Rust has same dynamic type as Dart. The very nature of these languages is different.