tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12383953.post3322800036549772043..comments2008-09-15T18:15:54.289+02:00Adriaan de Jongehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09243136592520051869noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12383953.post-25522877784360067592008-09-15T18:15:00.000+02:002008-09-15T18:15:00.000+02:00Thanks, I wasn't sure about the right classification when writing this. I put the last entry of the word dynamic between del-tags.<BR/><BR/>This is an interesting post by the way:<BR/><BR/>"Scala the statically typed dynamic language"<BR/><BR/>http://scala-blogs.org/2007/12/scala-statically-typed-dynamic-language.htmlAdriaan de Jongehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09243136592520051869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12383953.post-26587294348769873372008-09-15T17:31:00.000+02:002008-09-15T17:31:00.000+02:00I'm of mixed emotions about Scala's integration of XML. My comment isn't about that, though.<BR/><BR/>I want to clarify one thing: Scala is no more a dynamic language than Java is. Scala is statically typed and in fact has a far richer, more self-consistent type system than Java does. Scala's only dynamic metaprogramming facilities are via Java reflection or runtime byte code generation and class loading fu.James Iryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02835376424060382389noreply@blogger.com