Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!purdue!rjh
From: rjh@cs.purdue.EDU (Bob Hathaway)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Bondage and Discipline Languages
Message-ID: <5795@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Date: 8 Jan 89 18:39:24 GMT
References: <8540@megaron.arizona.edu> <2630@ficc.uu.net> <13293@cup.portal.com>
Sender: news@cs.purdue.EDU
Reply-To: rjh@cs.purdue.edu (Bob Hathaway)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University
Lines: 13



Lets please stop using the term B&D languages, this is a bad
analogy and a heavily biased opinion.  Maybe I can't adequately 
express classes or model abstractions in expression-based 
language X and feel similarly constrained.  This shows the
term 'B&D' can be applied from almost any paradigm or style 
of programming to any other and is semantically worthless.
Lets be more precise and use unambiguous terms such as
strongly, weakly, or dynamically typed languages so we don't have
to type 'k' so often.

rjh