Refer to Ruby/Python/JS as "dynamically evaluated" #24383
Conversation
"Dynamically typed" didn't seem like a relevant distinction; there are statically-compiled dynamically-typed languages. Another term that might work here (despite being notoriously vague) is "scripting languages".
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @alexcrichton (or someone else) soon. If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. The way Github handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes. Please see CONTRIBUTING.md for more information. |
|
Thanks @avdi! yeah, the original isn't exactly the right wording, but I don't know if this is the way to go, either. Because then you get into the whole 'AOT vs JIT vs interpreted' is a property of the implementation, not of the language itself... How about this: remove the adjective alltogether. "If you're coming from a language like"... ? |
|
That would work. Or "a dynamic language like...", leaving it ambiguous what you mean by "dynamic". |
|
I'd be happy with either of those. :) |
|
@bors: r+ rollup |
|
📌 Commit 8107579 has been approved by |
|
Oh, didn't see this got updated! Thanks again @avdi :D |
"Dynamically typed" didn't seem like a relevant distinction; there are statically-compiled dynamically-typed languages. Another term that might work here (despite being notoriously vague) is "scripting languages".
|
There are also statically typed interpreted languages out there, so I like that the docs now make this subtle distinction |
"Dynamically typed" didn't seem like a relevant distinction; there are statically-compiled dynamically-typed languages. Another term that might work here (despite being notoriously vague) is "scripting languages".