3 ms·
> I'd rather use a static language like Go which still keeps much of the dynamic feel If I'm going to use a language for the purpose of having a type system t
by wwweston 11y ago
> I'd rather use a static language like Go which still keeps much of the dynamic feel
If I'm going to use a language for the purpose of having a type system that's supposed to keep me out of trouble, it's not going to be something like Go, in which I'm going to spend time fighting (or end-running around) the type system where it's not expressive/flexible enough, but I'm not going to get much in the way of useful help except on the most basic level.
- eloff 11y agoThere are diminishing returns with the type system. Having a super expressive/complex type system like Haskell can be good, but it also adds a lot to the overhead in keeping the type system happy. It can distract you from actually solving the problem at hand. I think Go strikes a happy balance between the two extremes of dynamic and super-powerful type systems.
- kqr 11y agoI may be biased, but seriously? Go is like on the very very super-primitive end of that scale. Only something like C is more primitive. Java has a more powerful type system! (Standard) Haskell isn't even near the most powerful extreme.
- codygman 11y agoGo is nowhere near the middle on a scale between dynamic and super-powerful type systems. I personally almost feel that using Go and super-powerful type system in the same sentence is disingenuous.