3 ms·
Yes, it's clearly true that architecture plays a major role. I've worked on one of those inheritance towers before. But adding/changing/removing code in a dynam
by jayshua 8y ago
Yes, it's clearly true that architecture plays a major role. I've worked on one of those inheritance towers before. But adding/changing/removing code in a dynamically typed language always leaves me worried that I've missed something. The only notice I have in such systems that I have missed something is a production runtime exception. Sure it takes longer up front to add a feature. And it's typically harder than in a dynamic language. My point is that taking the convenience of an untyped language is usually a poor/lazy architectural decision.
- _Tev 8y ago> adding/changing/removing code in a dynamically typed language always leaves me worried that I've missed something. Looking from the other side, this seems like "static typing gives me illusion of safety, and I miss it in dynamic languages". Sure, it might be justified for large projects in the long run, but > taking the convenience of an untyped language is usually a poor/lazy architectural decision. sounds like not understanding (or unwilligness to use?) trade-offs involved, due to personal preference. I don't like these (unintentional?) claims of superiority based purely on personal preference. Static typing is just a tool, with its pros&cons.