3 ms·
> Most advanced statically typed languages completely SUCK in the programmability department. Unless you are some genius of course. Is this a common opinion? I
by jswrenn 11y ago
> Most advanced statically typed languages completely SUCK in the programmability department. Unless you are some genius of course.
Is this a common opinion? I've certainly heard the criticism that statically typed languages slow you down because you're fighting the compiler, but not that they're the only for exceptionally smart people. That's a troubling conclusion and potentially a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'm curious how the author came to this opinion. Every "advanced" statically typed language I can think of isn't exclusively complicated type constructs; it's very much possible to write programs with simple type constraints. I wonder this opinion stems from a leak of Haskell's popular reputation.
- adrusi 11y agoI think the author was referring to programmability as in language extensibility. So the "geniuses" he references would be C++ template metaprogramming wizards. I don't think he was claiming that statically typed languages require you to be a genius to use.
- gokr 11y agoYeah, well, I actually meant both. One can't claim C++ is an "easy language" no matter what you are doing with it. And let's face it, most languages that are considered "easy to use" are dynamically typed. So yes, I do think it's a common opinion. And yes there are surely exceptions you can find :)