3 ms·

Rich would probably do very well in a debate-style talk. The art of argumentation is very subtle. If you think there'd be a blowout that entirely discredits th

by platz 9y ago

Rich would probably do very well in a debate-style talk. The art of argumentation is very subtle. If you think there'd be a blowout that entirely discredits the dynamic typing camp—that would rather be like expecting a debate that completely invalidates one side of republican/democrat debate. There are simply core values each side has that are very hard to persuade someone out of. mostly, what people do is "talk to their base/tribe", and then snipe the other side with cheap shots.

yawaramin 9y ago
I'm not even looking for a winner-take-all argument. I just want someone to be able to immediately correct Rich when he says something wacky about static typing. E.g., 'You don't have labelled arguments!' 'You have labelled arguments since Standard ML i.e. at least the '80s, e.g.: $ poly Poly/ML 5.7 Release > fun add { num1, num2 } = num1 + num2; val add = fn: {num1: int, num2: int} -> int > add { num1 = 1, num2 = 0 }; val it = 1: int
- christophilus 9y ago
  Yeah. He's aware of that. I think he's generally talking to Java crowds, so the static typing experience of the general programmer is pretty bad. That said, I liked this talk and agreed with much of it.
  - yawaramin 9y ago
    There are options on the JVM outside of Java, from Kotlin to Scala to Whiley to Eta, or even OCamlJava which might be nearing a release. An alternative to dismissing static typing entirely based on Java, is looking at other languages which have less verbose, more elegant type systems on the JVM. RH is ignoring that aspect completely. Understandable, based on his worldview and experience, but not very accurate.
- mpweiher 9y ago
  > wacky about static typing No more wacky than the claims people make about dynamic types, e.g. "You can't have refactoring with dynamic types" Refactoring was invented on Smalltalk. etc.
  - yawaramin 9y ago
    Yeah, but there's 'people' i.e. randos on the internet, and then there's Rich Hickey giving a keynote at a major conference. It deserves a better standard of accuracy.

by platz 9y ago

yawaramin 9y ago

I'm not even looking for a winner-take-all argument. I just want someone to be able to immediately correct Rich when he says something wacky about static typing. E.g., 'You don't have labelled arguments!' 'You have labelled arguments since Standard ML i.e. at least the '80s, e.g.: $ poly Poly/ML 5.7 Release > fun add { num1, num2 } = num1 + num2; val add = fn: {num1: int, num2: int} -> int > add { num1 = 1, num2 = 0 }; val it = 1: int

christophilus 9y ago
Yeah. He's aware of that. I think he's generally talking to Java crowds, so the static typing experience of the general programmer is pretty bad. That said, I liked this talk and agreed with much of it.
- yawaramin 9y ago
  There are options on the JVM outside of Java, from Kotlin to Scala to Whiley to Eta, or even OCamlJava which might be nearing a release. An alternative to dismissing static typing entirely based on Java, is looking at other languages which have less verbose, more elegant type systems on the JVM. RH is ignoring that aspect completely. Understandable, based on his worldview and experience, but not very accurate.
mpweiher 9y ago
> wacky about static typing No more wacky than the claims people make about dynamic types, e.g. "You can't have refactoring with dynamic types" Refactoring was invented on Smalltalk. etc.
- yawaramin 9y ago
  Yeah, but there's 'people' i.e. randos on the internet, and then there's Rich Hickey giving a keynote at a major conference. It deserves a better standard of accuracy.