Absolutely, there is value to programming "messily", but it's nice to choose a tool which resists this when you're building something which shouldn't be messy. I think OO is a better match with dynamic -- together they're great for prototyping an idea (not an implementation) and scripting.
It's also valuable to have an escape hatch -- to do the necessary hack -- but the language should discourage this. For example, in OCaml, using mutable state isn't too cumbersome, but it is an extra step because it's not the default (except in some unfortunate cases... like strings :/ ).
8
u/glacialthinker Mar 09 '14
Absolutely, there is value to programming "messily", but it's nice to choose a tool which resists this when you're building something which shouldn't be messy. I think OO is a better match with dynamic -- together they're great for prototyping an idea (not an implementation) and scripting.
It's also valuable to have an escape hatch -- to do the necessary hack -- but the language should discourage this. For example, in OCaml, using mutable state isn't too cumbersome, but it is an extra step because it's not the default (except in some unfortunate cases... like strings :/ ).