3 ms·

You're talking about you and your opinions. For a given task, random programmers are quicker at achieving the goal with dynamic programming languages. That's w

You're talking about you and your opinions. For a given task, random programmers are quicker at achieving the goal with dynamic programming languages. That's why scripting languages are popular. They are also easier to learn.

scarface74 9y ago
How could it be a "goal" to have incorrect code?
- mabynogy 9y ago
  You're dishonest. The goal is to measure productivity.
  - scarface74 9y ago
    "Productivity" in the real world is how long does it take me to get to a working solution. A solution that isn't correct isn't working.
    - mabynogy 9y ago
      It's a sophism. That's what they did.
bwbw223 8y ago
Sure, but it doesn’t scale well. Static-typing makes code easier to come back to a year later or collaborate on because it’s more self-documenting. You don’t have to dig through the codebase to figure out that a function should have only accepted a number, because the interpreter/compiler would have screamed at you the moment you try something else. Scripting languages may be easier to learn, but they aren’t as scalable and efficient. In requiring less scaffolding and structure, they’re not as well suited at creating correct code in large codebases. They’re still great for prototyping, though.
- scarface74 8y ago
  Not only correct code, but refactorable code. With statically typed languages, you can use tools like Resharper and do all types of refactorings that are guaranteed safe - unless you're using reflection I've softened a little bit about scripting languages. They are great for small functions like AWS lambdas and "scripting" like the UserData portion when you're setting up a VM in AWS.
  - mabynogy 8y ago
    Both static and dynamic typing are useful. They should be available in the same language but that language doesn't exist yet.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      It does exist. You can define all of your variables as "dynamic" in C#.
      - mabynogy 8y ago
        Interesting. It looks like a variant or an object whose type list is only known at runtime. What I have in mind is a language able to convert functions calls from dynamic to static (and the opposite). If the compiler can infer the type, the call is static else dynamic (with multidispatch for function overload).
        scarface74 8y ago
        Not the old COM variant type. If I remember correctly, the old COM variant was C struct that wrapped a union of other COM types.
- mabynogy 8y ago
  Programming doesn't scale well. My experience is Javascript and even PHP scale better than C++. I do a lot of type checking and I don't use OOP features.

scarface74 9y ago

How could it be a "goal" to have incorrect code?

mabynogy 9y ago
You're dishonest. The goal is to measure productivity.
- scarface74 9y ago
  "Productivity" in the real world is how long does it take me to get to a working solution. A solution that isn't correct isn't working.
  - mabynogy 9y ago
    It's a sophism. That's what they did.

bwbw223 8y ago

Sure, but it doesn’t scale well. Static-typing makes code easier to come back to a year later or collaborate on because it’s more self-documenting. You don’t have to dig through the codebase to figure out that a function should have only accepted a number, because the interpreter/compiler would have screamed at you the moment you try something else. Scripting languages may be easier to learn, but they aren’t as scalable and efficient. In requiring less scaffolding and structure, they’re not as well suited at creating correct code in large codebases. They’re still great for prototyping, though.

scarface74 8y ago
Not only correct code, but refactorable code. With statically typed languages, you can use tools like Resharper and do all types of refactorings that are guaranteed safe - unless you're using reflection I've softened a little bit about scripting languages. They are great for small functions like AWS lambdas and "scripting" like the UserData portion when you're setting up a VM in AWS.
- mabynogy 8y ago
  Both static and dynamic typing are useful. They should be available in the same language but that language doesn't exist yet.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    It does exist. You can define all of your variables as "dynamic" in C#.
    - mabynogy 8y ago
      Interesting. It looks like a variant or an object whose type list is only known at runtime. What I have in mind is a language able to convert functions calls from dynamic to static (and the opposite). If the compiler can infer the type, the call is static else dynamic (with multidispatch for function overload).
      - scarface74 8y ago
        Not the old COM variant type. If I remember correctly, the old COM variant was C struct that wrapped a union of other COM types.
mabynogy 8y ago
Programming doesn't scale well. My experience is Javascript and even PHP scale better than C++. I do a lot of type checking and I don't use OOP features.