5 ms·

> seem to prove otherwise Prove how? They could have succeeded in spite of dynamic typing, not because of it. Facebook defined a new programming language to ad

> seem to prove otherwise Prove how? They could have succeeded in spite of dynamic typing, not because of it. Facebook defined a new programming language to add static typing to HHVM. The process of plugging into WordPress is infamous in its disorganization. There’s a lack of good statically-typed languages, so it’s natural for many popular things to be built in dynamically-typed ones, but that doesn’t make the dynamic typing approach better.

TekMol 9y ago
Prove how? By means of natural selection. They could have succeeded in spite of dynamic typing, not because of it. You think the otherwise smart and successfull founders of these projects all made the wrong choice when it came to selecting the right tool for the job? Facebook defined a new programming language No, they wrote a faster runtime. to add static typing to HHVM No, they added type annotations. There’s a lack of good statically-typed languages No, in the past statically typed languages were the norm. C, C++, Java... It's just that dynamic languages outcompeted them.
- minitech 9y ago
  > You think the otherwise smart and successful founders of these projects all made the wrong choice when it came to selecting the right tool for the job? Not at all! I think dynamic typing hurts code, but there are: - not always alternatives - many other slightly suboptimal choices that it’s quite possible to succeed in spite of > No, they wrote a faster runtime. I’m referring to Hack, which is in fact another language with static typing. (Type annotations are static typing with compromises, and you can see what’s being gone for.) > No, in the past statically typed languages were the norm. C, C++, Java... Those are not remotely good. Some examples closer to being good are Rust, a step in the right direction that’s still unfolding, and Haskell, a wonderful language hampered by a slow compiler and a lack of decent packages. (And probably several less popular languages, but popularity is an important factor…)
  - Turing_Machine 9y ago
    "Those are not remotely good. Some examples closer to being good are Rust, a step in the right direction that’s still unfolding, and Haskell, a wonderful language hampered by a slow compiler and a lack of decent packages. (And probably several less popular languages, but popularity is an important factor…)" Wait: so you are arguing that startups should use languages that are either incomplete (Rust) or that have slow compilers and poor library support (Haskell), or possibly some other "good" language that doesn't actually even exist?
    - minitech 9y ago
      I’m saying that dynamically-typed programming languages are the best choice right now, but that it’s not because they’re dynamically-typed; existing fare for statically-typed languages is just worse. Probably should have clarified that earlier since it looks like I agree with the statement that choosing Python was “a mistake”; sorry. I don’t. Vehemently.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  If type annotations support a static verifier, they implement static typing (which, after all, is just having a static verifier that uses some combination of annotations and inference to validate types.)
- dom0 9y ago
  > It's just that dynamic languages outcompeted them. All "trending" languages are statically typed (Rust, Go, Swift, Kotlin, ...) and all the popular JavaScrip-improved-languages are statically typed as well. Even further, many dynamically typed languages have pushed in recent years to add type annotations or even static typing (e.g. mypy). Dynamic typing is the brainchild of the 90s for rapid initial development. Sustainability has been a big issue from the outset.
  - kazinator 9y ago
    Dynamic typing is from 1958 Lisp. Your history is off a bit there, by some forty years.
    - dom0 9y ago
      Lisp has nothing to do (in many ways) with the late 80s and 90s wave of dynamic languages.
      - spot 9y ago
        JavaScript was definitely partly inspired by Scheme.
        zem 9y ago
        likewise ruby by lisp
        Gaelan 9y ago
        I’d say Ruby’s closest sibling is Smalltalk personally.
        kazinator 9y ago
        People say this mainly because of the brace-enclosed blocks of code being functions. However, that is really just a syntactic sugar for lambda (and can even have explicit arguments: (lambda (x y) ...) <--> {|x,y| ... }.
- nine_k 9y ago
  Smart answer successful founders of Wikipedia took an existing wiki engine. Their aspirations were not in the software development area. Highly dynamic languages like Python or PHP or Perl are easy to start with, so they're great for prototypes. Then either a serious rewrite follows, using a statically checked language, or scaffolding is erected to continue to make do with the dynamic code. Microservices help!
  - bayesian_horse 9y ago
    Erm, so splitting big Python projects into microservices is proof that dynamic typing is unsustainable?
    - nine_k 9y ago
      No; but a single microservice is a smaller code base that a large monolith, so the problem . Also, you normally control the microservice's interface more strictly, and change it less often, and care about compatibility and versioning more, than for a typical internal API.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- nv-vn 9y ago
  >You think the otherwise smart and successfull founders of these projects all made the wrong choice when it came to selecting the right tool for the job? Nobody is perfect. Mark Zuckerberg has had his fair share of controversies for example. >No, in the past statically typed languages were the norm. C, C++, Java... Not good examples for your argument. These are largely considered poorly statically typed. Compare to ML, Haskell, Ada, Rust, Swift for reference.
- TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
  > No, they wrote a faster runtime. Which includes a statically-typed version of PHP, namely Hack, that they use for their code. > No, they added type annotations. Hack's type checking is much more sophisticated than mere “annotations”. That label might be better suited to PHP's type system.
coldtea 9y ago
>Prove how? They could have succeeded in spite of dynamic typing, not because of it. Then maybe the burden of proof is on you? If you started your career recently, it's easy to be caught up into this "static typing" as some kind of the only way.
- andreasgonewild 9y ago
  And until you have gone back and forth a couple of times, building moderately complex systems; it's difficult to appreciate the advantages that static checking bring to the table. Sure, it's possible to achieve the same effect with unit tests; but having half of those tests written and rewritten for you by the compiler definitely helps. Back in the days, I wanted to buy into the Python/Ruby hype as much as anyone; but having implemented several complex systems in Python/Ruby, I'm not that excited about the idea anymore; once they pass a certain point, agile begins to feel more like Jello.
- minitech 9y ago
  > Then maybe the burden of proof is on you? I’m saying that the parent doesn’t prove its point, and I’m not attempting to prove its parent’s point. > If you started your career recently, it's easy to be caught up into this "static typing" as some kind of the only way. I didn’t, and the bulk of what I’ve built has been in languages with dynamic typing. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14675577 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14675577. Dismissing stuff as “recent starts” is pretty cheap, anyway.
Turing_Machine 9y ago
"They could have succeeded in spite of dynamic typing, not because of it." Yes, they could have. Evidence for your hypothesis would be the existence of similarly successful companies that used compiled statically-typed languages from the beginning. Are there any recent ones?
- tome 9y ago
  Are you suggesting that there are no similarly successful companies that used Java, C# or C++?
  - Turing_Machine 9y ago
    Are you suggesting there are? I asked for examples. Can you provide one?
kchoudhu 9y ago
I'm going to throw this idea out there: companies can succeed independent of type checking.
- rdtsc 9y ago
  That's really going out on the limb though... But you're right. Moreover I noticed obsession with a particular language is often a hallmark of a junior engineer or a recent grad. This this idea of "If you don't use Go/Node.js/etc you'll totally fail".
  - kchoudhu 9y ago
    HN skews young, I'm sure they'll grow out of it.
- minitech 9y ago
  > Dynamically typed languages for large code bases are terrible was the original argument. Success/failure of entire companies has somehow been brought into it.
PunchTornado 9y ago
The same can be said about any company to justify your opinions, like Linkedin, they use Java and Scala and their page speed is so slow. Compared to Facebook they are like a 1900' tractor. A facebook page opens in less than a second, a Linkedin page in 5.
- mudbutt 9y ago
  I think it's the fact LinkedIn uses Ember. Anything built with Ember is sluggish and bloated

TekMol 9y ago

Prove how? By means of natural selection. They could have succeeded in spite of dynamic typing, not because of it. You think the otherwise smart and successfull founders of these projects all made the wrong choice when it came to selecting the right tool for the job? Facebook defined a new programming language No, they wrote a faster runtime. to add static typing to HHVM No, they added type annotations. There’s a lack of good statically-typed languages No, in the past statically typed languages were the norm. C, C++, Java... It's just that dynamic languages outcompeted them.

minitech 9y ago
> You think the otherwise smart and successful founders of these projects all made the wrong choice when it came to selecting the right tool for the job? Not at all! I think dynamic typing hurts code, but there are: - not always alternatives - many other slightly suboptimal choices that it’s quite possible to succeed in spite of > No, they wrote a faster runtime. I’m referring to Hack, which is in fact another language with static typing. (Type annotations are static typing with compromises, and you can see what’s being gone for.) > No, in the past statically typed languages were the norm. C, C++, Java... Those are not remotely good. Some examples closer to being good are Rust, a step in the right direction that’s still unfolding, and Haskell, a wonderful language hampered by a slow compiler and a lack of decent packages. (And probably several less popular languages, but popularity is an important factor…)
- Turing_Machine 9y ago
  "Those are not remotely good. Some examples closer to being good are Rust, a step in the right direction that’s still unfolding, and Haskell, a wonderful language hampered by a slow compiler and a lack of decent packages. (And probably several less popular languages, but popularity is an important factor…)" Wait: so you are arguing that startups should use languages that are either incomplete (Rust) or that have slow compilers and poor library support (Haskell), or possibly some other "good" language that doesn't actually even exist?
  - minitech 9y ago
    I’m saying that dynamically-typed programming languages are the best choice right now, but that it’s not because they’re dynamically-typed; existing fare for statically-typed languages is just worse. Probably should have clarified that earlier since it looks like I agree with the statement that choosing Python was “a mistake”; sorry. I don’t. Vehemently.
dragonwriter 9y ago
If type annotations support a static verifier, they implement static typing (which, after all, is just having a static verifier that uses some combination of annotations and inference to validate types.)
dom0 9y ago
> It's just that dynamic languages outcompeted them. All "trending" languages are statically typed (Rust, Go, Swift, Kotlin, ...) and all the popular JavaScrip-improved-languages are statically typed as well. Even further, many dynamically typed languages have pushed in recent years to add type annotations or even static typing (e.g. mypy). Dynamic typing is the brainchild of the 90s for rapid initial development. Sustainability has been a big issue from the outset.
- kazinator 9y ago
  Dynamic typing is from 1958 Lisp. Your history is off a bit there, by some forty years.
  - dom0 9y ago
    Lisp has nothing to do (in many ways) with the late 80s and 90s wave of dynamic languages.
    - spot 9y ago
      JavaScript was definitely partly inspired by Scheme.
      - zem 9y ago
        likewise ruby by lisp
        Gaelan 9y ago
        I’d say Ruby’s closest sibling is Smalltalk personally.
        kazinator 9y ago
        People say this mainly because of the brace-enclosed blocks of code being functions. However, that is really just a syntactic sugar for lambda (and can even have explicit arguments: (lambda (x y) ...) <--> {|x,y| ... }.
nine_k 9y ago
Smart answer successful founders of Wikipedia took an existing wiki engine. Their aspirations were not in the software development area. Highly dynamic languages like Python or PHP or Perl are easy to start with, so they're great for prototypes. Then either a serious rewrite follows, using a statically checked language, or scaffolding is erected to continue to make do with the dynamic code. Microservices help!
- bayesian_horse 9y ago
  Erm, so splitting big Python projects into microservices is proof that dynamic typing is unsustainable?
  - nine_k 9y ago
    No; but a single microservice is a smaller code base that a large monolith, so the problem . Also, you normally control the microservice's interface more strictly, and change it less often, and care about compatibility and versioning more, than for a typical internal API.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
nv-vn 9y ago
>You think the otherwise smart and successfull founders of these projects all made the wrong choice when it came to selecting the right tool for the job? Nobody is perfect. Mark Zuckerberg has had his fair share of controversies for example. >No, in the past statically typed languages were the norm. C, C++, Java... Not good examples for your argument. These are largely considered poorly statically typed. Compare to ML, Haskell, Ada, Rust, Swift for reference.
TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
> No, they wrote a faster runtime. Which includes a statically-typed version of PHP, namely Hack, that they use for their code. > No, they added type annotations. Hack's type checking is much more sophisticated than mere “annotations”. That label might be better suited to PHP's type system.

coldtea 9y ago

>Prove how? They could have succeeded in spite of dynamic typing, not because of it. Then maybe the burden of proof is on you? If you started your career recently, it's easy to be caught up into this "static typing" as some kind of the only way.

andreasgonewild 9y ago
And until you have gone back and forth a couple of times, building moderately complex systems; it's difficult to appreciate the advantages that static checking bring to the table. Sure, it's possible to achieve the same effect with unit tests; but having half of those tests written and rewritten for you by the compiler definitely helps. Back in the days, I wanted to buy into the Python/Ruby hype as much as anyone; but having implemented several complex systems in Python/Ruby, I'm not that excited about the idea anymore; once they pass a certain point, agile begins to feel more like Jello.
minitech 9y ago
> Then maybe the burden of proof is on you? I’m saying that the parent doesn’t prove its point, and I’m not attempting to prove its parent’s point. > If you started your career recently, it's easy to be caught up into this "static typing" as some kind of the only way. I didn’t, and the bulk of what I’ve built has been in languages with dynamic typing. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14675577 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14675577. Dismissing stuff as “recent starts” is pretty cheap, anyway.

Turing_Machine 9y ago

"They could have succeeded in spite of dynamic typing, not because of it." Yes, they could have. Evidence for your hypothesis would be the existence of similarly successful companies that used compiled statically-typed languages from the beginning. Are there any recent ones?

tome 9y ago
Are you suggesting that there are no similarly successful companies that used Java, C# or C++?
- Turing_Machine 9y ago
  Are you suggesting there are? I asked for examples. Can you provide one?

kchoudhu 9y ago

I'm going to throw this idea out there: companies can succeed independent of type checking.

rdtsc 9y ago
That's really going out on the limb though... But you're right. Moreover I noticed obsession with a particular language is often a hallmark of a junior engineer or a recent grad. This this idea of "If you don't use Go/Node.js/etc you'll totally fail".
- kchoudhu 9y ago
  HN skews young, I'm sure they'll grow out of it.
minitech 9y ago
> Dynamically typed languages for large code bases are terrible was the original argument. Success/failure of entire companies has somehow been brought into it.

PunchTornado 9y ago

The same can be said about any company to justify your opinions, like Linkedin, they use Java and Scala and their page speed is so slow. Compared to Facebook they are like a 1900' tractor. A facebook page opens in less than a second, a Linkedin page in 5.

mudbutt 9y ago
I think it's the fact LinkedIn uses Ember. Anything built with Ember is sluggish and bloated