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

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