4 ms·

Mose developers are average developers. If I have an average developer writing my mvp or adding user-defined features, I'd rather have a static type system to s

Mose developers are average developers. If I have an average developer writing my mvp or adding user-defined features, I'd rather have a static type system to save them time. Otherwise they have to write more tests or fly by the seat of their pants, which may lead to all the issues I raised. Just because successful companies use dynamic languages doesn't mean dynamic languages produce successful companies. And plenty of those companies had plenty of scaling issues and growing pains that just throwing a cache in front of didn't solve. Dynamic languages are only faster to develop in because they are more ubiquitous and familiar, not because they inherently decrease the time it takes to write software. And if you get to that point, where time is no longer a factor, then choosing dynamic just leaves more opportunities for inefficiency and runtine errors.

mythz 9y ago
Your preferences helps you, other developers have their own language and tooling preferences they choose to help make them more productive. > Just because successful companies use dynamic languages doesn't mean dynamic languages produce successful companies. Talented resources is usually an ingredient that's shared amongst most successful companies and there is no shortage of talented developers preferring dynamic languages. Dynamic languages like python are also extremely popular in complicated fields like science, AI and machine learning, etc. > And plenty of those companies had plenty of scaling issues and growing Inefficient software can be written in any language and scaling issues are more often the result of poor architecture and unoptimal implementation than language performance. A successful company with growing pains is also more valuable than a failed company without. > Dynamic languages are only faster to develop in because they are more ubiquitous and familiar, not because they inherently decrease the time it takes to write software. That's incredibly naive. Developer iteration times are much faster in dynamic languages, tools that enable live programming, Hot reloading, faster run/build cycles have a direct impact on developer productivity and are commonly born from dynamic languages. A rich developer ecosystem is also an important factor in being able to quickly adopt well-written tested and hardened libraries which popular dynamic languages have aplenty which is a direct result of being able to attract a large pool of talented developers, languages that can do this are more popular than ones that don't, irrespective of their type systems.
- jjnoakes 9y ago
  > other developers have their own language and tooling preferences Of course if you prefer a language, use it, but don't argue that your preference has any bearing on how well your language helps you avoid issues like runtime type errors that other languages don't experience. You either have to write more unit tests, or pray, or be infallible. > there is no shortage of talented developers preferring dynamic languages There is also no shortage of talented developers preferring static languages. And given the two, I know which developer I prefer. Especially since I've never worked with an infallible developer, even in the upper echelons. > Developer iteration times are much faster in dynamic languages I disagree, I find I'm about as productive in either, but in a dynamic language I have to write more unit tests or pray, and I don't like wasting my time on either. > tools that enable live programming, Hot reloading, faster run/build cycles have a direct impact on developer productivity Those features are orthogonal to the type system.
  - mythz 9y ago
    > Of course if you prefer a language, use it, but don't argue that your preference has any bearing on how well your language helps you avoid issues like runtime type errors that other languages don't experience. You either have to write more unit tests, or pray, or be infallible. I've not once mentioned my preference. My preference and where I spend the majority of my time developing server libraries and Services C# which I consider the most well-balanced modern statically-typed language available. But I'm not naive enough to think everyone would be better off developing in C#, most startups prefer dynamic languages with good reasons stemming from being quicker to market, faster iteration times, more malleable in implementing customer requirements and having a rich pool of talented resources available. There are a lot of smart people sharing the same opinion, like Alan Kay: > If you’re using early-binding languages as most people do, rather than late-binding languages, then you really start getting locked in to stuff that you’ve already done. You can’t reformulate things that easily. - http://mythz.servicestack.net http://mythz.servicestack.net Smalltalk was first released 45 years ago and it still has live programming features like being able to re-program its IDE while it's running that I've never seen any static language been able to do. There's a whole class of software I can't imagine being built in a static language, like Wordpress rich extensibility and plugin ecosystem, I've implemented a few Wordpress sites and custom plugins which would've taken an inordinate amount of time in a statically typed language. I've spent a few years developing PHP and I very much dislike PHP based on its language merits, but I have an appreciation of what it's been able to be built with it. There are other classes of software that are extremely hard to implement in a statically typed language like React which IMO is revolutionary in developing complex UIs. I also think it's infeasible for tools like Webpack to have been written in a typed language, where its able to import any kind of asset in the source files that use them, being able to easily chain loaders together, running incremental watched builds that transpile source code, generate source maps, inline images, cache-breakers, etc. Webpack's Hot reloading feature would also take significantly more effort to develop in a statically-typed language. Tools like this are born from dynamic languages because it's simply much easier to do which would've taken significantly more effort in a statically-typed language. I also develop and maintain http://techstacks.io http://techstacks.io (Server in C#, not that it matters) and see the amazing number of successful products being built with dynamic languages, not in-spite of them. From what I've seen a large majority of successful SV startups use dynamic languages. Languages and technology should be a tool to achieve your objectives, many technology choices involves trade-offs, dismissing and throwing shade on successful companies usage of dynamic languages prevents you from seeing the benefits they have in using them, what advantages they have and which scenarios where they'd offer the most compelling value. The reason why many amazing software and talented engineers use dynamic languages isn't because they don't know statically-typed languages exist - it's a mistake to write-off other people's choices because they don't share your same views.

mythz 9y ago

Your preferences helps you, other developers have their own language and tooling preferences they choose to help make them more productive. > Just because successful companies use dynamic languages doesn't mean dynamic languages produce successful companies. Talented resources is usually an ingredient that's shared amongst most successful companies and there is no shortage of talented developers preferring dynamic languages. Dynamic languages like python are also extremely popular in complicated fields like science, AI and machine learning, etc. > And plenty of those companies had plenty of scaling issues and growing Inefficient software can be written in any language and scaling issues are more often the result of poor architecture and unoptimal implementation than language performance. A successful company with growing pains is also more valuable than a failed company without. > Dynamic languages are only faster to develop in because they are more ubiquitous and familiar, not because they inherently decrease the time it takes to write software. That's incredibly naive. Developer iteration times are much faster in dynamic languages, tools that enable live programming, Hot reloading, faster run/build cycles have a direct impact on developer productivity and are commonly born from dynamic languages. A rich developer ecosystem is also an important factor in being able to quickly adopt well-written tested and hardened libraries which popular dynamic languages have aplenty which is a direct result of being able to attract a large pool of talented developers, languages that can do this are more popular than ones that don't, irrespective of their type systems.

jjnoakes 9y ago
> other developers have their own language and tooling preferences Of course if you prefer a language, use it, but don't argue that your preference has any bearing on how well your language helps you avoid issues like runtime type errors that other languages don't experience. You either have to write more unit tests, or pray, or be infallible. > there is no shortage of talented developers preferring dynamic languages There is also no shortage of talented developers preferring static languages. And given the two, I know which developer I prefer. Especially since I've never worked with an infallible developer, even in the upper echelons. > Developer iteration times are much faster in dynamic languages I disagree, I find I'm about as productive in either, but in a dynamic language I have to write more unit tests or pray, and I don't like wasting my time on either. > tools that enable live programming, Hot reloading, faster run/build cycles have a direct impact on developer productivity Those features are orthogonal to the type system.
- mythz 9y ago
  > Of course if you prefer a language, use it, but don't argue that your preference has any bearing on how well your language helps you avoid issues like runtime type errors that other languages don't experience. You either have to write more unit tests, or pray, or be infallible. I've not once mentioned my preference. My preference and where I spend the majority of my time developing server libraries and Services C# which I consider the most well-balanced modern statically-typed language available. But I'm not naive enough to think everyone would be better off developing in C#, most startups prefer dynamic languages with good reasons stemming from being quicker to market, faster iteration times, more malleable in implementing customer requirements and having a rich pool of talented resources available. There are a lot of smart people sharing the same opinion, like Alan Kay: > If you’re using early-binding languages as most people do, rather than late-binding languages, then you really start getting locked in to stuff that you’ve already done. You can’t reformulate things that easily. - http://mythz.servicestack.net http://mythz.servicestack.net Smalltalk was first released 45 years ago and it still has live programming features like being able to re-program its IDE while it's running that I've never seen any static language been able to do. There's a whole class of software I can't imagine being built in a static language, like Wordpress rich extensibility and plugin ecosystem, I've implemented a few Wordpress sites and custom plugins which would've taken an inordinate amount of time in a statically typed language. I've spent a few years developing PHP and I very much dislike PHP based on its language merits, but I have an appreciation of what it's been able to be built with it. There are other classes of software that are extremely hard to implement in a statically typed language like React which IMO is revolutionary in developing complex UIs. I also think it's infeasible for tools like Webpack to have been written in a typed language, where its able to import any kind of asset in the source files that use them, being able to easily chain loaders together, running incremental watched builds that transpile source code, generate source maps, inline images, cache-breakers, etc. Webpack's Hot reloading feature would also take significantly more effort to develop in a statically-typed language. Tools like this are born from dynamic languages because it's simply much easier to do which would've taken significantly more effort in a statically-typed language. I also develop and maintain http://techstacks.io http://techstacks.io (Server in C#, not that it matters) and see the amazing number of successful products being built with dynamic languages, not in-spite of them. From what I've seen a large majority of successful SV startups use dynamic languages. Languages and technology should be a tool to achieve your objectives, many technology choices involves trade-offs, dismissing and throwing shade on successful companies usage of dynamic languages prevents you from seeing the benefits they have in using them, what advantages they have and which scenarios where they'd offer the most compelling value. The reason why many amazing software and talented engineers use dynamic languages isn't because they don't know statically-typed languages exist - it's a mistake to write-off other people's choices because they don't share your same views.