3 ms·
I think the argument is not "You can't write something maintainable in a dynamic language" - it's more like "Given the majority of projects, static typing would
by anko 10y ago
I think the argument is not "You can't write something maintainable in a dynamic language" - it's more like "Given the majority of projects, static typing would have helped readability".
Since in SDLC maintenance is like 80%, and most of the time code isn't written amazingly, it seems pragmatic to have static typing.
I love Dynamic languages as much as the next guy (Ruby and clojure are pretty great in my book) but in my career, I get my guys to write in statically typed languages.
- stcredzero 10y agoit's more like "Given the majority of projects, static typing would have helped readability". Not so much readability. That comes mostly from good naming in Smalltalk, and thinking about, "What if I had to understand this through senders/implementors searches?" However, in my experience, it helps maintainability. In general, I didn't need type annotations to help me understand the system. Good Smalltalk is about message passing, so you understood the system through who sends what to whom. What I did experience a lack of, were 100% ironclad guarantees in a couple of instances where we needed to be 100% sure about something. And yes, it is pragmatic to have static typing for the long term!