4 ms·
I think a lot of the disconnect comes from "static typing" meaning different things to different people. When some people say "static typing" they are thinking
by winstonewert 8y ago
I think a lot of the disconnect comes from "static typing" meaning different things to different people. When some people say "static typing" they are thinking a language like Haskell with a powerful type system. However, when most programmers say "static typing" they are thinking a language like Java or C++ with a rather underpowered type system. Programmers who prefer dynamic typing are largely deciding that they would rather work in a language without a static type system than a crappy one.,
- Koshkin 8y agoThe correct distinction is static vs. dynamic typing on the one hand, and strong vs. weak vs. no typing on the other.
- marcosdumay 8y agoI think the point is way more complex than this. Some type systems are more expressive than others, some type systems require more ceremony than others, and some type systems are more constraining than others. The real problem with all those discussions about types (and why I think nobody should try to pass an opinion unless they tried something at least as good as Haskell) is that the most used static languages have the least constraining, most ceremonious and least expressive systems around. Developers gain nearly nothing from their type systems, but they are incredibly demanding of upkeep.