3 ms·
I see no reason to use a language that eliminates run-time types. Having type information available at run-time means that I can develop, debug, and analyze at
by serichsen 16y ago
I see no reason to use a language that eliminates run-time types. Having type information available at run-time means that I can develop, debug, and analyze at a living system. The IDE and refactoring support you can gain from this is in no way inferior to what you can do with a dead, static blueprint system.
My preferred language has dynamic typing, but its common implementations also do type inference at compile time, in order to optimize generic operations, and to warn about things that cannot work. Since during development I only recompile the snippet I am working on, while the rest of the system is running on, the compiler can use all the type information available from the running system.
- zwetan 16y ago> I see no reason to use a language that eliminates run-time types euh... even if a language is considered dynamically typed and/or using weak types, the language still have types.
- chc 16y agoMaybe I'm missing something, but it seems like having type information available at runtime is orthogonal to static type checking.
- Rusky 16y agoYou can keep type information at runtime and still be statically typed, a la the CLR.