3 ms·

keyword being "easy"

• seanwilson 9y ago
  I just don't find that personally. Having to run the code over and over again to manually check for errors or having to write unit tests to gain confidence it's working is more difficult to me than getting help from static type checking. I mean why do you think it's always going to be more difficult with static types? Because you have to write type annotations?
  • sametmax 9y ago
    External data are never perfectly documented or known. You usually have huge and painful experimentation phase with parsing it. Experimenting is way easier with dynamic languages. You type less. Changing your mind has a lower cost. You don't need to think about doing the right things as much.
    • seanwilson 9y ago
      So in a statically typed language, if all I know is that I'm getting a string as input, it'll force me to deal with all the possibilities. Is it a number in the form of a string? A null value? A string that isn't a number? The type system will guide me through handling all the possibilities and enforce that I handle all of them. With dynamic typing, there's always a chance you've missed a case and next time the data comes in it'll trigger an exception. If you have decent type inference there isn't extra typing and any time you think you're saving with dynamic languages gets eaten up having to manually fix things when errors happen at runtime. I'd much rather spend time fixing predictable compile time errors than unpredictable runtime errors.