3 ms·

> Your comments are full of snide comments against dynamic languages They are not snide, nor are they "against" anything any more than saying "the sun is yello

> Your comments are full of snide comments against dynamic languages They are not snide, nor are they "against" anything any more than saying "the sun is yellow" is "against" the color blue. Half or more of the things you quoted aren't even about dynamic languages, and the other half are true (or do you care to refute them? For example, if you don't write tests to take the place of static typing, and you aren't praying, then you are either infallible (ha!) or you are lying). > Which is categorically False Believe what you want; it's clear you aren't interested in opening your eyes. So be it! And that big list of companies has nothing to do with the discussion. Of course they use dynamic languages. Almost everyone does, because they are popular and because some tasks seem easier in them. But there are still quality issues that could have been prevented.

mythz 9y ago
> They are not snide, nor are they "against" anything any more than saying "the sun is yellow" is "against" the color blue. > Believe what you want; it's clear you aren't interested in opening your eyes. So be it! You forgot "Calling the Kettle Black". But I'm more than comfortable with my experience with multiple languages in each style enough to be able to identify their strengths and weaknesses and which scenarios each are better suited to, of which I've listed several examples which are better suited to dynamic languages. Likewise there are many that are not. > if you don't write tests to take the place of static typing Tests are essential to software quality and static typing does not absolve you from writing tests. Static Typing enforces Type correctness, it does not enforce program correctness. > And that big list of companies has nothing to do with the discussion. It has everything to do with which language yields the most benefits and whether Startups have made a mistake in adopting them, I posit they haven't and Empirical evidence suggests that they're a more suitable choice for Startups. > Of course they use dynamic languages. Of course. > Almost everyone does, Ok. > because they are popular and because some tasks seem easier in them. It's because they provide more value than not. > But there are still quality issues that could have been prevented. For which they often provide more benefits then they give up, which is entirely the point, that adopting dynamic languages is not a mistake. My proposition was that dynamic languages offer better velocity which lets you get to market quicker. Static Typing helps with type correctness and maintenance of large code-bases and it's a perfectly fine strategy to rapidly prototype with a dynamic language first then rewrite identified hotspots and problem areas in a more appropriate language. Script execution performance is often not the bottleneck, a good caching strategy can make any language fast, areas which don't benefit from caching, i.e. high writes / high concurrency would benefit from a rewrite and in a growing user-base, scalability is more important than script execution performance.
- jjnoakes 9y ago
  > Tests are essential to software quality and static typing does not absolve you from writing tests. No one said they did. You have to write fewer tests with static typing, not zero tests. > My proposition was that dynamic languages offer better velocity which lets you get to market quicker Velocity is subjective - perhaps for the developers in question dynamic languages are quicker to market, but I argue that is more because of familiarity and popularity, and less because of dynamic typing. For example, developers I work with are just as proficient in both types of languages, and get to market just as fast with static typing, and in the long run they don't need to rewrite or chase typing bugs or spend more money on scaling inefficient software.
  - mythz 9y ago
    > No one said they did. You have to write fewer tests with static typing, not zero tests. Typing is not a substitute for tests, you test for desired functionality in both. Albeit there's a stronger culture for testing in dynamic languages given they're more of a necessity. > Velocity is subjective No, Velocity can be measured. > but I argue that is more because of familiarity and popularity, and less because of dynamic typing. That's no argument, it's a weak and sheltered assumption showing a lack of first-hand experience. Don't presume to know that of which you don't know. > For example, developers I work with are just as proficient in both types of languages, and get to market just as fast with static typing, Of course you can't know that for sure, but it sure fits your thwarted view of them quite nicely. If that were true most Startups whose existence are hinged on their ability to get to market would not be overwhelmingly be in favor of using dynamic languages. Your goals as a technologist should be to adopt an unbiased view, identify strengths and weaknesses of each tool so you're able to make informed decisions about which use-cases are best solved by either. Your unknowledgeable and disparaging remarks on them wreaks that you're more interested in trying to confirm your own biases than you are on from ever being able to benefit from them in any capacity. Learning the idioms and being proficient in multiple languages will make you a better programmer, you'll learn elegant techniques, new perspectives and be able to identify friction that you can apply back in your primary language. You'll also be more productive in the large number of use-cases where they're naturally better suited. Add one to your toolbox today!

mythz 9y ago

> They are not snide, nor are they "against" anything any more than saying "the sun is yellow" is "against" the color blue. > Believe what you want; it's clear you aren't interested in opening your eyes. So be it! You forgot "Calling the Kettle Black". But I'm more than comfortable with my experience with multiple languages in each style enough to be able to identify their strengths and weaknesses and which scenarios each are better suited to, of which I've listed several examples which are better suited to dynamic languages. Likewise there are many that are not. > if you don't write tests to take the place of static typing Tests are essential to software quality and static typing does not absolve you from writing tests. Static Typing enforces Type correctness, it does not enforce program correctness. > And that big list of companies has nothing to do with the discussion. It has everything to do with which language yields the most benefits and whether Startups have made a mistake in adopting them, I posit they haven't and Empirical evidence suggests that they're a more suitable choice for Startups. > Of course they use dynamic languages. Of course. > Almost everyone does, Ok. > because they are popular and because some tasks seem easier in them. It's because they provide more value than not. > But there are still quality issues that could have been prevented. For which they often provide more benefits then they give up, which is entirely the point, that adopting dynamic languages is not a mistake. My proposition was that dynamic languages offer better velocity which lets you get to market quicker. Static Typing helps with type correctness and maintenance of large code-bases and it's a perfectly fine strategy to rapidly prototype with a dynamic language first then rewrite identified hotspots and problem areas in a more appropriate language. Script execution performance is often not the bottleneck, a good caching strategy can make any language fast, areas which don't benefit from caching, i.e. high writes / high concurrency would benefit from a rewrite and in a growing user-base, scalability is more important than script execution performance.

jjnoakes 9y ago
> Tests are essential to software quality and static typing does not absolve you from writing tests. No one said they did. You have to write fewer tests with static typing, not zero tests. > My proposition was that dynamic languages offer better velocity which lets you get to market quicker Velocity is subjective - perhaps for the developers in question dynamic languages are quicker to market, but I argue that is more because of familiarity and popularity, and less because of dynamic typing. For example, developers I work with are just as proficient in both types of languages, and get to market just as fast with static typing, and in the long run they don't need to rewrite or chase typing bugs or spend more money on scaling inefficient software.
- mythz 9y ago
  > No one said they did. You have to write fewer tests with static typing, not zero tests. Typing is not a substitute for tests, you test for desired functionality in both. Albeit there's a stronger culture for testing in dynamic languages given they're more of a necessity. > Velocity is subjective No, Velocity can be measured. > but I argue that is more because of familiarity and popularity, and less because of dynamic typing. That's no argument, it's a weak and sheltered assumption showing a lack of first-hand experience. Don't presume to know that of which you don't know. > For example, developers I work with are just as proficient in both types of languages, and get to market just as fast with static typing, Of course you can't know that for sure, but it sure fits your thwarted view of them quite nicely. If that were true most Startups whose existence are hinged on their ability to get to market would not be overwhelmingly be in favor of using dynamic languages. Your goals as a technologist should be to adopt an unbiased view, identify strengths and weaknesses of each tool so you're able to make informed decisions about which use-cases are best solved by either. Your unknowledgeable and disparaging remarks on them wreaks that you're more interested in trying to confirm your own biases than you are on from ever being able to benefit from them in any capacity. Learning the idioms and being proficient in multiple languages will make you a better programmer, you'll learn elegant techniques, new perspectives and be able to identify friction that you can apply back in your primary language. You'll also be more productive in the large number of use-cases where they're naturally better suited. Add one to your toolbox today!