4 ms·

I don't really see where you get that. Is dynamic typing demonstrating a lot of sustainable success?

by stmw 9y ago

fulafel 9y ago
I edited in the Clojure part after you replied. Languages that have forgone static typing aren't necessarily trying to solve everything using language types at runtime. See eg Clojure's approach. Or SQL's. But at the base popularity-contest level the answer is clearly yes: Dynamic languages have been on a roll for the last 30 years - Perl, Python, Ruby, Erlang, Clojure, even JS.
- 35bge57dtjku 9y ago
  That certainly doesn't mean it's because of their dynamic typing. And Erlang and Clojure, as nice as they are, are still about as popular as AWK is.
kowdermeister 9y ago
I've seen a comparison lately with static vs. dynamic languages and it compared bugs/open issues and there was not really an advantage there IIRC.
- machiaweliczny 9y ago
  It's just my opinion, but there definitely is difference in favor of optional static typing. It simply adds more expressivness to language - you get free documentation standard (input,output,structures) backed in. You don't have annoying typos and you leave data manipulation computation to computer lowering programmer cognitive load. Also you can change code in editor(fastest feedback loop) without even running it(very important if there is high price for running code - ex. complicated system bootstrap, deployment, hardware).
  - stmw 9y ago
    That, and also there are so many independent confounding factors in these comparison studies that I am not sure they can ever outperform reasoning or personal experience. The reasoning part in your comment - lowering cognitive load, faster feedback cycles (in editor, in compiler, etc.), fewer typo-induced problems - seems hard to argue with.
    - fulafel 9y ago
      It seems both camps count lowering the cognitive load and faster feedback cycles to their advantage! Good dynamic systems have long done live-coding against the running system with instant feedback. Even recent static languages like Rust and Scala have notoriously long compile times and thus slow feedback loops. Also there's along tradition of querying the system for things like auto-completion / doc display. The cognitive load of fancy type systems like Haskell's is seen as very high.

I don't really see where you get that. Is dynamic typing demonstrating a lot of sustainable success?

by stmw 9y ago

I don't really see where you get that. Is dynamic typing demonstrating a lot of sustainable success?

I edited in the Clojure part after you replied. Languages that have forgone static typing aren't necessarily trying to solve everything using language types at runtime. See eg Clojure's approach. Or SQL's. But at the base popularity-contest level the answer is clearly yes: Dynamic languages have been on a roll for the last 30 years - Perl, Python, Ruby, Erlang, Clojure, even JS.

35bge57dtjku 9y ago
That certainly doesn't mean it's because of their dynamic typing. And Erlang and Clojure, as nice as they are, are still about as popular as AWK is.

kowdermeister 9y ago

I've seen a comparison lately with static vs. dynamic languages and it compared bugs/open issues and there was not really an advantage there IIRC.

machiaweliczny 9y ago
It's just my opinion, but there definitely is difference in favor of optional static typing. It simply adds more expressivness to language - you get free documentation standard (input,output,structures) backed in. You don't have annoying typos and you leave data manipulation computation to computer lowering programmer cognitive load. Also you can change code in editor(fastest feedback loop) without even running it(very important if there is high price for running code - ex. complicated system bootstrap, deployment, hardware).
- stmw 9y ago
  That, and also there are so many independent confounding factors in these comparison studies that I am not sure they can ever outperform reasoning or personal experience. The reasoning part in your comment - lowering cognitive load, faster feedback cycles (in editor, in compiler, etc.), fewer typo-induced problems - seems hard to argue with.
  - fulafel 9y ago
    It seems both camps count lowering the cognitive load and faster feedback cycles to their advantage! Good dynamic systems have long done live-coding against the running system with instant feedback. Even recent static languages like Rust and Scala have notoriously long compile times and thus slow feedback loops. Also there's along tradition of querying the system for things like auto-completion / doc display. The cognitive load of fancy type systems like Haskell's is seen as very high.