| Overkill. This article isn't a dictionary entry, an encyclopedia, or a research paper. It describes what's necessary to build a programming language for someone who has the necessary skills, which is someone who programs. The entire premise of this programming language isn't based on as rigorous ideas as what you're criticizing, and that's been the reaction since the first time I posted about it. As for what I was talking about, I'm only interested in dynamically typed languages that are compiled and provide support for 'eval in this case, because I don't believe that this is possible without providing a complete library for an interpreter with a compiled executable. For every other case, who really cares? Being able to replace every variable declaration with the keyword `auto' does not a new (or useful) programming language make. Additionally, all of these other gray areas in-between are not something I am interested in. For this purpose, when speaking of the Duck programming language, dynamicism refers to being able to literally manipulate types and data in any way imaginable, both in terms of runtime behavior AND typing. In any case, it is designed to be the most dynamic language, as the union of all of these features, and as such that invalidates a huge number of complaints. >> Attempting to access a value that has not been named in a relevant scope leads to a syntax error issued at compile time. > A syntax error? Really? Syntax? This is a very minor complaint and mirrors 99% of the criticism I've received. I wish I could get more interesting feedback for the content of my writing rather than the semantics. |