5 ms·
Like everything else, there are pros and cons. It’s not like dynamic languages are worse or better per-se, but they surely make it harder to scale a team or a c
by fosk 8y ago
Like everything else, there are pros and cons. It’s not like dynamic languages are worse or better per-se, but they surely make it harder to scale a team or a codebase 10x the original size without introducing what effectively is some sort of typed system (or strict “typed” conventions that the team agrees upon) in place. Which may be done right, or disastrously wrong. A typed language generally doesn’t leave this step up for interpretation later on, since everybody agrees on it since day one.
- cellularmitosis 8y agoAs a newbie to clojure, I’m very curious to see what a large codebase looks and feels like. The clojure attitude seems to be that types come at the cost of reduced code reuse, which I tend to agree with. After a decade spent in strongly-typed OO, it is starting to feel like a bunch of sound and fury which seems to end up eventually just getting in my way. I’m definitely open to new ideas in this area, and am looking forward to taking a deeper dive into clojure this year.
- jondubois 8y agoAlternatively, you can break the project up into modules; each of which are maintained my smaller teams. I think that is a cleaner approach.