4 ms·

> It's easier to write code in dynamic-typed languages because (generally speaking, I'm pretty sure there are exceptions to this rule) dynamically-typed languag

by leshow 8y ago

> It's easier to write code in dynamic-typed languages because (generally speaking, I'm pretty sure there are exceptions to this rule) dynamically-typed languages are not as verbose as static-typed languages. I really don't understand this argument. What typed languages have you used? Decent type system are able to infer most or all of your types. Meaning you ge the benefits of a type system without having to explicitly type everything. Also, when you code, is your bottleneck serious how fast you can type? If it is, I would suggest you need a different approach. > But in the meantime the general feeling around writing computer programs has changed, correctness and "bug-free-ness" are now seen as one of the main mantras of being a programmer We are engineers, or at least we should be. Correctness has to be a goal, although I feel like even saying that is laughable right now. The amount of effort to prove a program is correct is extremely high for anything nontrivial. Robust type systems at least help cover our bases and help us reason about the structure of things, and more powerful type systems allow you to push even more invariants to the type system.

paganel 8y ago
> Also, when you code, is your bottleneck serious how fast you can type? If it is, I would suggest you need a different approach. My brain can process only so much information, the less thing it has to process (like the less type declarations) the better. > We are engineers, or at least we should be. Correctness has to be a goal, although I feel like even saying that is laughable right now. That’s what I was trying to explain, in a very convoluted way, that back in the day programmers were not intrinsically viewed as engineers, and that that viewpoint was seen as a valid one. Engineers were seen as building cathedrals while programmers (or hackers, if you will) were seen as building bazaars and other random stuff (like forums written in Lisp-like languages like Arc).
- leshow 8y ago
  > My brain can process only so much information, the less thing it has to process (like the less type declarations) the better. Ignoring that I've already mentioned inference that makes this a non-issue. My other problem with this is that just because you don't have a type system or don't have to write types, doesn't mean that the constraints of that 'information' goes away. Your function still has a set of invariants that need to be maintained, you've just opted to make them invisible and have your program crash when they are violated. Instead of knowing statically when you've made a mistake.

by leshow 8y ago

paganel 8y ago

> Also, when you code, is your bottleneck serious how fast you can type? If it is, I would suggest you need a different approach. My brain can process only so much information, the less thing it has to process (like the less type declarations) the better. > We are engineers, or at least we should be. Correctness has to be a goal, although I feel like even saying that is laughable right now. That’s what I was trying to explain, in a very convoluted way, that back in the day programmers were not intrinsically viewed as engineers, and that that viewpoint was seen as a valid one. Engineers were seen as building cathedrals while programmers (or hackers, if you will) were seen as building bazaars and other random stuff (like forums written in Lisp-like languages like Arc).

leshow 8y ago
> My brain can process only so much information, the less thing it has to process (like the less type declarations) the better. Ignoring that I've already mentioned inference that makes this a non-issue. My other problem with this is that just because you don't have a type system or don't have to write types, doesn't mean that the constraints of that 'information' goes away. Your function still has a set of invariants that need to be maintained, you've just opted to make them invisible and have your program crash when they are violated. Instead of knowing statically when you've made a mistake.