3 ms·

> dynamic languages are dead Maybe. Tooling is coming in leaps and bounds for dynamic languages. Codebases are also trending way down as companies move to "mic

• lmm 11y ago
  > Tooling is coming in leaps and bounds for dynamic languages. Yeah, but it tends to involve reimplementing a type system - if anything this is a sign of how mature and easy type systems have become. I think we may see languages with optional/best-effort typing for a while longer, but there will be no more pure dynamic languages; every new language will at the very least have a python3-style language-level standard for how to record type annotations so that tools that work with types can interoperate. And once you have that, it seems stupid not to have the language check at least the simple cases. > Codebases are also trending way down as companies move to "microservices". Both bode really well for dynamic languages. I think that's effect rather than cause. If you're writing a big system in (say) Ruby, microservices become the only way to achieve the required level of isolation. > I actually think the 10 year future is going to be dominated by languages where you don't need to think in terms of types at all but you get all the benefits behind the scenes. I thought that for a while, but types a really useful tool for thinking with. In Scala I could write Python-like code that wouldn't need any explicit types (they'd all be inferred), but instead I use types to help express the design.