3 ms·

> 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 a

> 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.

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.