4 ms·

Sorry, cannot reply down the thread, so I'll put my answer here: > This is not necessarily true: Static typing quite often requires you to satisfy the type sys

by sklogic 10y ago

Sorry, cannot reply down the thread, so I'll put my answer here: > This is not necessarily true: Static typing quite often requires you to satisfy the type system We're talking about static typing in general, not some particular implementation of it. Any static type system with an "anything" type (think of the System.Object in .NET, for example) allows a transparent fallback to dynamic at any time. So, claiming that "there is a cost" is an outright lie. > I haven't stated that dynamic typing is better, but I have stated that people claiming one or the other need to have proof. You know, there is a little funny thingy called "logic". And one of the most common tricks in logic is a proof by contradiction. When you're asking for a proof that static typing is superior, the simplest way is to start with "let's assume dynamic typing is superior". This is exactly what I did. Unfortunately, you could not follow. > If your programs are as airtight as the "proof" you've given here, I'm not sure I ever want to use them. It's understandable that a person who do not know much about type systems in particular and PL theory in general also apparently does not know much about proofs and logic in general. After all, type theory and proof theory are indistinguishable.

59nadir 10y ago
> You know, there is a little funny thingy called "logic". And one of the most common tricks in logic is a proof by contradiction. When you're asking for a proof that static typing is superior, the simplest way is to start with "let's assume dynamic typing is superior". This is exactly what I did. Unfortunately, you could not follow. Condescending, but not to be confused with correct. I'll try as well: Given your obviously limited knowledge and familiarity with English I can understand that you seem to have issues understanding my basic argument, but I'll restate it for you: If you are trying to claim something as superior, you need to provide actual reasons for it, not just speculation. I hope you followed that. > It's understandable that a person who do not know much about type systems in particular and PL theory in general also apparently does not know much about proofs and logic in general. After all, type theory and proof theory are indistinguishable. It's actually not understandable that someone who claims to have a lot of knowledge in type systems and type theory, as well as logic, to provide "proof" that in no way proves what was asked for. It's also surprising that someone who claims to be so well versed in PLT essentially says it's all type theory. It's understandable if a person with reading comprehension issues would have problems reading this post, so if you have any questions regarding it (or the previous posts), feel free to ask.
- sklogic 10y ago
  It is very childish and stupid to respond to a proof with a shit like "no, this is not a proof". > The idea that static type systems are better to use (in general) because you can make dynamic type systems on top of them is simply not something you can just say and then have taken as fact. Oh, did not realise you're so incompetent (although I should have guessed after your epic fail with the gradual typing). Do I have to prove that 2+2=4 too? Once again: dynamic typing is a subset of static typing and therefore it is less powerful. Period. You cannot do anything with this fact. Also, funny that you did not respond to my accusation that you believe that type systems are only for "validity checking". Which suggests that I was right.
  - 59nadir 10y ago
    Do you feel like you should be able to make any nonsensical argument you want and people should take that as fact/proof? The idea that static type systems are better to use (in general) because you can make dynamic type systems on top of them is simply not something you can just say and then have taken as fact. Also, I should add, I think you lost the "this is childish call" when, two posts into this thread, you made assumptions about everyone saying dynamic typing was useful (they obviously are not on your level, amirite?). You started this thread off by saying empirical evidence of which is better for practical use is almost impossible to get. You then proceeded to argue your position as fact, knowing that you had no evidence to support it. If you want to present your opinion as fact, then feel free to find actual facts to support it. Get over yourself.
    - dang 10y ago
      You and sklogic took this thread into an inner circle of flamewar hell. This is a poster child for the kind of discussion we don't want here, which pollutes HN for everyone else. Please don't do this again. If you feel provoked, catch it before it drives you into an angry back-and-forth. That's not easy, but it's something we all have to work on in order not to destroy this site.
      - 10y ago

by sklogic 10y ago

59nadir 10y ago

> You know, there is a little funny thingy called "logic". And one of the most common tricks in logic is a proof by contradiction. When you're asking for a proof that static typing is superior, the simplest way is to start with "let's assume dynamic typing is superior". This is exactly what I did. Unfortunately, you could not follow. Condescending, but not to be confused with correct. I'll try as well: Given your obviously limited knowledge and familiarity with English I can understand that you seem to have issues understanding my basic argument, but I'll restate it for you: If you are trying to claim something as superior, you need to provide actual reasons for it, not just speculation. I hope you followed that. > It's understandable that a person who do not know much about type systems in particular and PL theory in general also apparently does not know much about proofs and logic in general. After all, type theory and proof theory are indistinguishable. It's actually not understandable that someone who claims to have a lot of knowledge in type systems and type theory, as well as logic, to provide "proof" that in no way proves what was asked for. It's also surprising that someone who claims to be so well versed in PLT essentially says it's all type theory. It's understandable if a person with reading comprehension issues would have problems reading this post, so if you have any questions regarding it (or the previous posts), feel free to ask.

sklogic 10y ago
It is very childish and stupid to respond to a proof with a shit like "no, this is not a proof". > The idea that static type systems are better to use (in general) because you can make dynamic type systems on top of them is simply not something you can just say and then have taken as fact. Oh, did not realise you're so incompetent (although I should have guessed after your epic fail with the gradual typing). Do I have to prove that 2+2=4 too? Once again: dynamic typing is a subset of static typing and therefore it is less powerful. Period. You cannot do anything with this fact. Also, funny that you did not respond to my accusation that you believe that type systems are only for "validity checking". Which suggests that I was right.
- 59nadir 10y ago
  Do you feel like you should be able to make any nonsensical argument you want and people should take that as fact/proof? The idea that static type systems are better to use (in general) because you can make dynamic type systems on top of them is simply not something you can just say and then have taken as fact. Also, I should add, I think you lost the "this is childish call" when, two posts into this thread, you made assumptions about everyone saying dynamic typing was useful (they obviously are not on your level, amirite?). You started this thread off by saying empirical evidence of which is better for practical use is almost impossible to get. You then proceeded to argue your position as fact, knowing that you had no evidence to support it. If you want to present your opinion as fact, then feel free to find actual facts to support it. Get over yourself.
  - dang 10y ago
    You and sklogic took this thread into an inner circle of flamewar hell. This is a poster child for the kind of discussion we don't want here, which pollutes HN for everyone else. Please don't do this again. If you feel provoked, catch it before it drives you into an angry back-and-forth. That's not easy, but it's something we all have to work on in order not to destroy this site.
    - 10y ago