5 ms·

I started programming with PHP and JavaScript (both dynamically typed) then I started writing games with ActionScript 2 (dynamically typed) then I switched to A

I started programming with PHP and JavaScript (both dynamically typed) then I started writing games with ActionScript 2 (dynamically typed) then I switched to ActionScript 3 (statically typed), then I got into Java (statically typed) and later C/C++ (statically typed) - So I spent a lot of time with both. For the past few years I've been coding almost exclusively in dynamically typed languages - I did some Python (dynamically typed) but mostly a lot of JavaScript/Node.js (dynamically typed). I understand all the pros and cons, but for me personally, I am much more productive with dynamically typed languages than statically typed ones. It was a long time ago, but I still remember clearly when I switched from AS2 to AS3 - I was writing games for Flash at the time; I did feel an improvement and I really liked the additional structure which types brought to my code. There was a certain satisfaction that came with defining fixed classes and interfaces and making use of polymorphism and various formal 'design patterns'. It gave me extra 'confidence' in my code. In retrospect, after having spent years praising statically-typed languages, and then later switching back to dynamically typed languages, I think a lot of the benefits that I felt during my static typing phase came down to one simple fact: "Statically typed languages force you think more before you do things" - This was really valuable early in my career when I had a tendency to rush things. However, now that I more fully appreciate how complex programming is (and how easy it is to break stuff), I am always very careful (regardless of the language). Static typing for me has become a tedious process through which I no longer derive much value - Though it was really useful at a specific point in my career. That said, I think there is some stuff (anything to do with low-level hardware/systems and optimizations) where statically typed languages cannot be avoided. Also I wouldn't say that people who like statically typed languages are inexperienced - I know some very experienced engineers who are just addicted to that extra feeling of 'confidence' and structure which statically typed languages give you.

Koshkin 10y ago
> some stuff Cant't help thinking that that's probably something like 90% of code out there...
jdmichal 10y ago
Forgive me, because I only have what you have said to work with. It sounds like this was a lot of smaller projects with smaller teams? If so, static typing increases value as project size and head count increases. The more pieces of the project that you didn't write or otherwise have low knowledge of their inner workings, the more dangerous modifying code becomes. It's very useful to have something telling you that everything looks OK. That something can be testing, but why rely on writing good tests when we have formal proof systems available?

Koshkin 10y ago

> some stuff Cant't help thinking that that's probably something like 90% of code out there...

jdmichal 10y ago

Forgive me, because I only have what you have said to work with. It sounds like this was a lot of smaller projects with smaller teams? If so, static typing increases value as project size and head count increases. The more pieces of the project that you didn't write or otherwise have low knowledge of their inner workings, the more dangerous modifying code becomes. It's very useful to have something telling you that everything looks OK. That something can be testing, but why rely on writing good tests when we have formal proof systems available?