3 ms·
Unless you are doing Java, I would even take issue with the argument that dynamic typing is faster to develop. It's taken as obvious fact but I don't think we
by wvenable 10y ago
Unless you are doing Java, I would even take issue with the argument that dynamic typing is faster to develop. It's taken as obvious fact but I don't think we should just take that as face value. Getting as-you-type feedback, intellisense, and simple documentation (methods, parameters, types) is hugely productive. As well as the ability to break things and know you've caught all the breaks.
I would say that a very fast edit-run cycle is an advantage of dynamic languages -- especially if you can edit code live without restarting the application -- but that's not always the norm.
- SomeCallMeTim 10y agoI agree, and I consider TypeScript to be twice as fast to develop in as plain JavaScript just because you don't need to: * Look up member names * Look up object hierarchy structures * Run code (or tests) to verify that you've done the above correctly When the compiler knows the types, it can bring your code up to 90% correct. Half the time you don't even need to specify types: TypeScript can guess them from context. You need to specify parameter types and return types; if you're declaring a variable without initializing it, or assigning it an empty array or object, you need to specify its type. Other than that you generally get type inference from TypeScript (at least as of 2.0).