3 ms·

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 gene

by 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.
  - cbd1984 10y ago
    This post is exactly what I come to HN to avoid: Moderators abusing users for no reason, disrupting discussions in the process.
59nadir 10y ago
Please stop editing your posts 40 minutes after you initially post them in order to muddle the post history. You're literally removing entire posts and adding completely new things, even as responses to responses. Work on your netiquette. > 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. No, not responding to something does not mean "you were right". I think strong static type systems are useful in many ways and I've already told you repeatedly that I prefer them. I have literally no care in the world what you assume about me. Can you confidently say that you've given even one clear reason why it's better to use static typing over dynamic typing in this thread? You've gone on one rant about the fact that you can build a dynamic type system on top of a static one, but haven't actually presented even one fact about why it's better to use static typing over dynamic typing. No one, in their next project, is going to build a dynamic type system in their static one, and then jerk off over that fact, when they could just start working on their ACTUAL project. Would you recommend to someone choosing between static and dynamic typing to start with a static one and then build their dynamic one on top of that? Your posts are full of bullshit, stupid assumptions and personal attacks. I only wish you'll realize what a disservice it does to acceptance of your opinion and how hard it is to agree with you even while holding much of the same opinion, because you're so insufferable.
sklogic 10y ago
> Please stop editing your posts 40 minutes after you initially post them in order to muddle the post history. HN does not allow to continue a thread below a certain threshold. > I think strong static type systems are useful in many ways and I've already told you repeatedly that I prefer them. This is not what I was talking about. Learn to read. My point is that you do not understand what does it mean that a bigger type system is providing new semantics for the language. You still fail to understand it, obviously, because this is a central point of my proof, which you failed to comprehend. > No one, in their next project, is going to build a dynamic type system in their static one, and then jerk off over that fact, when they could just start working on their ACTUAL project. Take a look at pretty much any code in static languages - it is almost always doing exactly this: various degrees of dynamic typing on top of static. Sometimes it is ugly, sometimes it is done the right way (LLVM is a good example of this approach). > Would you recommend to someone choosing between static and dynamic typing to start with a static one and then build their dynamic one on top of that? Even you somehow heard something about the gradual typing - which is exactly an example of this. > Your posts are full of bullshit, stupid assumptions and personal attacks. Omg. I'm only responding to your attacks. You're an uninformed and incompetent side in this argument, not me.
- 59nadir 10y ago
  > HN does not allow to continue a thread below a certain threshold. Click on the time (for example "2 minutes ago") to open the post and reply there. > My point is that you do not understand what does it mean that a bigger type system is providing new semantics for the language. You still fail to understand it, because this is a central point of my proof. And my point is that you haven't answered why using a static type system over a dynamic one is a net win for people, which is the entire point. If there is no empiric evidence, don't argue as if there were. You yourself admitted that there is no evidence for it, so why are you arguing from a contradictory position? > Even you somehow heard something about the gradual typing - which is exactly an example of this. No, the practical flow of doing that is exactly the opposite: Starting from dynamic typing and imposing types when they are needed, likely after an exploratory phase. You seem to be arguing from a much more disconnected view point where you take the position that the platforms underlying representation is what matters, and I am arguing from a practical perspective (What should the programmer choose for his next project?).
dang 10y ago
We bent over backwards not to ban you, gave you lots of warnings and cut you tons more slack than we usually do. You're aware of how unacceptable it is to post comments like this to HN, and still you did it repeatedly in this thread, turning a large section of it into a toxic waste dump. Obviously, your account is now banned. If you don't want it to be banned, you can email us at hn@ycombinator.com, but please don't do that until you're sincerely committed to never spoiling HN like this again.
- cbd1984 10y ago
  This kind of moderatorial bickering does not belong on HN.
  - cbd1984 10y ago
    And now you're disagreeing by downvoting.
- cbd1984 10y ago
  You're the one spoiling HN with your insults and disruption.

by sklogic 10y ago

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.
- cbd1984 10y ago
  This post is exactly what I come to HN to avoid: Moderators abusing users for no reason, disrupting discussions in the process.

59nadir 10y ago

Please stop editing your posts 40 minutes after you initially post them in order to muddle the post history. You're literally removing entire posts and adding completely new things, even as responses to responses. Work on your netiquette. > 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. No, not responding to something does not mean "you were right". I think strong static type systems are useful in many ways and I've already told you repeatedly that I prefer them. I have literally no care in the world what you assume about me. Can you confidently say that you've given even one clear reason why it's better to use static typing over dynamic typing in this thread? You've gone on one rant about the fact that you can build a dynamic type system on top of a static one, but haven't actually presented even one fact about why it's better to use static typing over dynamic typing. No one, in their next project, is going to build a dynamic type system in their static one, and then jerk off over that fact, when they could just start working on their ACTUAL project. Would you recommend to someone choosing between static and dynamic typing to start with a static one and then build their dynamic one on top of that? Your posts are full of bullshit, stupid assumptions and personal attacks. I only wish you'll realize what a disservice it does to acceptance of your opinion and how hard it is to agree with you even while holding much of the same opinion, because you're so insufferable.

sklogic 10y ago

> Please stop editing your posts 40 minutes after you initially post them in order to muddle the post history. HN does not allow to continue a thread below a certain threshold. > I think strong static type systems are useful in many ways and I've already told you repeatedly that I prefer them. This is not what I was talking about. Learn to read. My point is that you do not understand what does it mean that a bigger type system is providing new semantics for the language. You still fail to understand it, obviously, because this is a central point of my proof, which you failed to comprehend. > No one, in their next project, is going to build a dynamic type system in their static one, and then jerk off over that fact, when they could just start working on their ACTUAL project. Take a look at pretty much any code in static languages - it is almost always doing exactly this: various degrees of dynamic typing on top of static. Sometimes it is ugly, sometimes it is done the right way (LLVM is a good example of this approach). > Would you recommend to someone choosing between static and dynamic typing to start with a static one and then build their dynamic one on top of that? Even you somehow heard something about the gradual typing - which is exactly an example of this. > Your posts are full of bullshit, stupid assumptions and personal attacks. Omg. I'm only responding to your attacks. You're an uninformed and incompetent side in this argument, not me.

59nadir 10y ago
> HN does not allow to continue a thread below a certain threshold. Click on the time (for example "2 minutes ago") to open the post and reply there. > My point is that you do not understand what does it mean that a bigger type system is providing new semantics for the language. You still fail to understand it, because this is a central point of my proof. And my point is that you haven't answered why using a static type system over a dynamic one is a net win for people, which is the entire point. If there is no empiric evidence, don't argue as if there were. You yourself admitted that there is no evidence for it, so why are you arguing from a contradictory position? > Even you somehow heard something about the gradual typing - which is exactly an example of this. No, the practical flow of doing that is exactly the opposite: Starting from dynamic typing and imposing types when they are needed, likely after an exploratory phase. You seem to be arguing from a much more disconnected view point where you take the position that the platforms underlying representation is what matters, and I am arguing from a practical perspective (What should the programmer choose for his next project?).

dang 10y ago

We bent over backwards not to ban you, gave you lots of warnings and cut you tons more slack than we usually do. You're aware of how unacceptable it is to post comments like this to HN, and still you did it repeatedly in this thread, turning a large section of it into a toxic waste dump. Obviously, your account is now banned. If you don't want it to be banned, you can email us at hn@ycombinator.com, but please don't do that until you're sincerely committed to never spoiling HN like this again.

cbd1984 10y ago
This kind of moderatorial bickering does not belong on HN.
- cbd1984 10y ago
  And now you're disagreeing by downvoting.
cbd1984 10y ago
You're the one spoiling HN with your insults and disruption.