3 ms·
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
by 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 agoYeah. 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 agoThere 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 agoYeah, 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.