5 ms·
Admittedly, I skimmed through this, but I miss a balanced discussion of the cost/benefits of static typing. I could see no discussion of the benefits of dynamic
by erokar 9y ago
Admittedly, I skimmed through this, but I miss a balanced discussion of the cost/benefits of static typing. I could see no discussion of the benefits of dynamically typed languges. Insted arguments for static typing are enumerated without a single reference.
For a more balanced discussion, see: https://www.infoq.com/presentations/dynamic-static-typing https://www.infoq.com/presentations/dynamic-static-typing
- ericssmith 9y agoYou should try skimming to the end, where there are two pages of references. Not to mention the fact that Cardelli is a prominent figure in the study of programming languages. And I think you'll find that Gilad Bracha is a more informed critic of reliance on static type checking.
- pjmlp 9y agoYep, he was one of the designers in the Modula-2+ and Modula-3 languages.
- simon_o 9y ago"Dynamically" typed languages are untyped, and are therefore likely considered out of scope in this document.