tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7520738.post2170446988022857419..comments2009-04-03T23:49:14.822+05:30Paraghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16885449156962300704noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7520738.post-22860298347994545542009-04-03T23:49:00.000+05:302009-04-03T23:49:00.000+05:30@Parag: Re "But in a statically typed language we cannot inject methods into an object at runtime and write code that simply expects them to be there when run."<BR/><BR/>Agreed: "monkey patching", an approach to support meta-programming in Groovy, has been shown to scale poorly and is not used in static languages.Neal Gafterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08579466817032124881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7520738.post-41105308580222156692009-04-01T23:20:00.000+05:302009-04-01T23:20:00.000+05:30Hi Neal,<BR/><BR/>But in a statically typed language we cannot inject methods into an object at runtime and write code that simply expects them to be there when run.<BR/><BR/>I see what you mean about closures not needing dynamic typing.Paraghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16885449156962300704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7520738.post-19319995823249982992009-04-01T20:55:00.000+05:302009-04-01T20:55:00.000+05:30You say "So, why does Groovy support optional typing? Groovy tries to be feature rich language with support for closures and meta-programming. Both these need Groovy to be dynamically typed." However, many statically typed languages have these features as well. There is no link between these features and dynamic typing.Neal Gafterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08579466817032124881noreply@blogger.com