5 ms·
Strong typing is a start but not enough for my taste. Static typing serves as documentation and compile time bug check, which is awesome to have. I'd like to ha
by mschuetz 9y ago
Strong typing is a start but not enough for my taste. Static typing serves as documentation and compile time bug check, which is awesome to have. I'd like to have both, without the detour over typescript.
- seanwilson 9y agoI don't think you're going to get strong types in standard JavaScript any time soon. Isn't TypeScript a very good compromise right now?
- flavio81 9y agoMy take is that having dynamic typing plus strong typing is a (pretty) good compromise. And static typing plus weak typing, insufficient.
- seanwilson 9y agoWhat languages would you put in these two categories?
- flavio81 9y agoNot all languages but here's a list: dynamic typing, strong typing: python (for the most part), Scheme dynamic typing, weak typing: Javascript, PHP static typing, strong typing: Pascal, Ada, Java, C# static typing, weak typing: C, Typescript, perhaps others SPECIAL CASES: strongly typed, dynamically typed, but with some compilers it can also be statically typed: Common Lisp strongly typed, statically typed but can infer types: Haskell, ML family strongly typed, can infer type with "auto" keyword: C++ (latest version) non-typed: Machine language, assembler, perhaps Forth
- seanwilson 9y agoWhat better alternative do you have to TypeScript right now though that you can use practically with existing libraries? Perfect is the enemy of good. TypeScript can capture more complex properties than C as well.