3 ms·

Good point; I've mused before that dynamic languages will always be a ~generation ahead of static languages, due to what you point out, that type systems are ha

Good point; I've mused before that dynamic languages will always be a ~generation ahead of static languages, due to what you point out, that type systems are hard, and very few people start working on a new type system as their hobby project (vs. hacking out a new syntax with an interpreter). But I hadn't appreciated the difference in difficulty between an unsound type system like TS and Scala's type system... I guess I've taken the formalism that underlies Scala's type system (e.g. the academic research behind dotty) as a given/for granted, but you're likely right, that TS can move faster because it doesn't need/have that level of rigor. Thanks!

hota_mazi 8y ago
> I've mused before that dynamic languages will always be a ~generation ahead of static language Did you mean "behind"? The trend is pretty clear: dynamically typed languages are disappearing and all the popular modern languages are statically typed with type inference. Most dynamically typed languages are busy adding static safety through gradual or opt-in typing, but you don't see the other way around. Javascript will probably be the last major dynamically typed language we ever had to use.
- bonesss 8y ago
  > dynamically typed languages are disappearing and all the popular modern languages are statically typed with type inference It does seems that all the dynamic languages are learning what the systems people knew in the 70s: for the Enterprise, correctness counts. A happy v1 is only 10% of the story... Getting to v225.5, warts and all, is just something else.