3 ms·
I'm confused by your statement that statically typed languages are concise. Every time I program in Java, the code size ends up blowing up exponentially. Howeve
by makmanalp 16y ago
I'm confused by your statement that statically typed languages are concise. Every time I program in Java, the code size ends up blowing up exponentially. However, a good 30-40% of the code is boilerplate rather than having to do with the task at hand. Now, this isn't a direct consequence of static typing BUT it looks like a very high portion of statically typed languages lean towards having a low content to code ratio.
- therockhead 16y agoSee Scala for a concise static typed language.
- whakojacko 16y agoOr others. A lot of people seem to think of Java when they immediately think that static typed code has to be very verbose. Much of the verbosity of Java comes out of design decisions that were made by choice-Java does a lot to limit the programmer's power, for better or worse (Pretty much entirely worse when working with competent programmers)
- aristidb 16y agoJava is not the only statically typed language, and some statically typed languages are almost phenomenally concise.
- makmanalp 16y agoIf you're referring to Haskell and the likes, sadly they're not nearly as prevalent.
- Rusky 16y agoThat is most definitely Java's fault for lacking good abstractions. Try Haskell or C#- much higher content:code.