3 ms·
The article makes two main points: a) static typing has a cost and b) thus, any benefit it brings should be examined against that cost. I am sorry, but I don't
by Merovius 9y ago
The article makes two main points: a) static typing has a cost and b) thus, any benefit it brings should be examined against that cost.
I am sorry, but I don't really see how you stating more benefits of static typing really counters either of them.
I recommend reading the article again. But this time, try not to read it as defending a specific language (I only mentioned my blub language so that it's a more specific and extensive reference in the cases where I use it - if you are not using my blub language, you should really just ignore everything I write about it specifically) and more as trying to talk on a meta-level about how we discuss these things. Because your comment is an excellent example of how not to do it and the kind of argument that prompted me to this writeup in the first place.
- Retra 9y agoThose are not really 'points', though; they are far too trivial. Obviously, nothing counters them, because they are tautologies that could just as well apply to any subject. The point is to explore a comparative difference in value, and that is realized through mastery of the tool, not merely living in a world where it exists.
- Merovius 9y ago> they are far too trivial. You'd have thunk I didn't have to make them than. But I did, judging from literally every argument I had about this.