3 ms·

I am addressing the main claim of the article quite clearly. Static typing adds complexity and there's no evidence that the added complexity results in any tang

by yogthos 11y ago

I am addressing the main claim of the article quite clearly. Static typing adds complexity and there's no evidence that the added complexity results in any tangible benefits. Therefore, my prediction is that dynamic typing isn't going anywhere unless some empirical evidence appears that clearly demonstrates the advantages of static typing. Seeing how long static typing has been around I wouldn't hold my breath on that. If you think that static languages have won then you must live in a very special bubble seeing how pretty much all of the web runs on JavaScript. Having such strong convictions in absence of any empirical evidence is simply faith and static typing seems to just be a religious experience for some people. Many advocates are like bible thumpers coming to your door and telling you to accept monads into your heart. Naturally these are the loudest elements of the community who live in their own little echo chamber.

sanderjd 11y ago
I liked your article and generally think you have lots of good thoughts, so I want to give you some color on why I think you're getting downvoted here (though I didn't downvote you), so that you don't just think it is because of "bible thumpers". You seem to be missing that jasod's claim was that the "main claim of the article" is "that he predicts the next wave of successful languages will have static checking but also look & feel like a "dynamic" one made possible by smarter compiler technologies such as type inferencing." You haven't said anything in this thread about "the next wave of successful languages" one way or the other. > If you think that static languages have won then you must live in a very special bubble seeing how pretty much all of the web runs on JavaScript. That's true, but has nothing to do with the claim about "the next wave of successful languages" because javascript is clearly part of the last wave (or really, the one before). You seem to be arguing (in an increasingly heated tone) a broader point (which may be right or wrong) in a thread attempting to focus on a more narrow one.

by yogthos 11y ago

sanderjd 11y ago

I liked your article and generally think you have lots of good thoughts, so I want to give you some color on why I think you're getting downvoted here (though I didn't downvote you), so that you don't just think it is because of "bible thumpers". You seem to be missing that jasod's claim was that the "main claim of the article" is "that he predicts the next wave of successful languages will have static checking but also look & feel like a "dynamic" one made possible by smarter compiler technologies such as type inferencing." You haven't said anything in this thread about "the next wave of successful languages" one way or the other. > If you think that static languages have won then you must live in a very special bubble seeing how pretty much all of the web runs on JavaScript. That's true, but has nothing to do with the claim about "the next wave of successful languages" because javascript is clearly part of the last wave (or really, the one before). You seem to be arguing (in an increasingly heated tone) a broader point (which may be right or wrong) in a thread attempting to focus on a more narrow one.