3 ms·
Clojure isn't nearly as bad as most would have you believe. I still prefer static strong typing, but since Clojure is strongly typed usually you'll find most of
by darksaints 8y ago
Clojure isn't nearly as bad as most would have you believe. I still prefer static strong typing, but since Clojure is strongly typed usually you'll find most of your errors within a few rounds of execution. And they have an excellent implementation gradual typing if that's your thing. If you value dynamic types, this is about as good as you can get.
- ken 8y agoFor some reason I find it funny that all the comments here about static typing are written in English, a language lacking not only static typing, but a syntax that's possible to automatically check. It lets one say things like "I still static strong typing" (which you've since corrected)! One could write a comment here in Haskell describing why static typing is better, yet nobody ever does. I think even the most ardent static typing proponents are implicitly admitting that dynamic typing is fine, and other concerns can be more important, in some contexts.
- Jach 8y agoYou would probably enjoy this talk by Guy Steele where he discusses the language of mathematics that computer science people use in their papers (Computer Science Metanotation) to talk about other languages. Funnily it's untyped and lacking a rigorous specification... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCuZkaaou0Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCuZkaaou0Q
- jwhitlark 8y agoThere's a reason why we teach math in kindergarten and proofs in college. There's lots of things that are useful to do without the rigors of rigorous proof.