4 ms·
You're kinda damning it with faint praise when you say that you can use dynamically typed languages on small projects that fit in your head (and are also probab
by always_good 9y ago
You're kinda damning it with faint praise when you say that you can use dynamically typed languages on small projects that fit in your head (and are also probably written by a single developer).
You can pretty much use any language in that scenario. But the chickens come to roost around day 30+ or so.
- icebraining 9y agoA large project is a poorly decoupled set of small projects.
- orthecreedence 9y agoTrue, once my libraries get bigger than five or six assembly instructions, I tend to break them down to a more manageable size.
- always_good 9y agoMay be. Meanwhile real-world non-trivial projects tend to be large projects. Nice to be prepared for that instead of gambling on "surely we'll extract out smaller projects that fall on the right abstraction boundaries in the face of unknown future requirements."
- ubernostrum 9y agoPersonally I'd only use a language like C or C++ or Java for a tiny puny baby child's toy program. They're fundamentally unfit for real-world codebases.
- KMag 9y agoI'm probably being trolled, but I'll bite. How big are the "real-world codebases" you're talking about, and how many programmers are working on the code? Once you hit 5-10 million lines of code and/or thousands of developers, static typing really helps manage complexity.
- ubernostrum 9y agoIt's more that I get tired of this argument and decided to try to pre-emptively spoil it.