3 ms·
Everyone keeps saying that, but my experience is rather the opposite. Static typing is great when the program is small and you can keep the model in your head,
by TurboHaskal 8y ago
Everyone keeps saying that, but my experience is rather the opposite. Static typing is great when the program is small and you can keep the model in your head, but the larger the program, the more you benefit from dynamic typing. Sure, static typing helps with tiny refactorings, but making non trivial changes that don't play well with the existing model proved to be too much effort.
I can't speak for Python but since the codebases were Perl and Common Lisp based, I believe it would be similar, should there be anything similar to the MOP for Python.
- kccqzy 8y agoIn my experience, it's the opposite. Static typing is great but not essential when the program is small and you can keep the model in your head, but the larger the program, the more you benefit from static typing. Static typing helps with tiny refactorings, but it truly shines when making non-trivial changes that don't play well with the existing model; it's as effortless as making the desired changes to the model, then mindlessly fixing all compile errors, and it will likely just work afterwards.
- sacado2 8y agoPlus, static typing acts as a formal documentation, which is more than welcome when you get to maintain someone else's code.
- therockhead 8y agoFor me this is by far the best feature of static typing.