4 ms·

Java is really the worst example for a typing system. It's basically the way you shouldn't do it. There are much better type safe languages like Haskell, Erlang

Java is really the worst example for a typing system. It's basically the way you shouldn't do it. There are much better type safe languages like Haskell, Erlang, Rust, etc., even just Kotlin because it drops so much of the boilerplate and excessive unnecessary verbosity, while retaining the static typing and its benefits.

bunderbunder 8y ago
Kotlin is an improvement insofar as it does a decent job of resolving insanity like the "object-oriented-but-you-have-to-cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back-when-you-say-it" type system. But it's still not a great example for static typing, insofar as you're still working with Java's half-baked type semantics where the set of types the language understands is a superset of the set of types that are expressible on the underlying platform. Meaning that the set of types that can exist is quite a bit (I'm guessing uncountably infinitely) larger than the set of types that you can non-contortively deal with when doing generic programming. Scala gets around this by attempting to extend the type system in deeply incompatible ways. Which mostly works, as long as you don't care about compatibility. Clojure gets around this through a combination of dynamic typing and Rich Hickey including a section titled "I Don't Need Any Sour Grapes" in every lecture he delivers in public. Of the three, TBH, I think Clojure has the best approach. You can't build proper static typing on top of the JVM without breaking compatibility with the rest of the Java ecosystem. At which point, why bother with the JVM at all?
- jplayer01 8y ago
  You're right, yes. Thanks for elaborating.
apta 8y ago
> the worst example for a typing system Not nearly as C or golang.
- jplayer01 8y ago
  Well, we were talking about static/strong typing. Java is a bad example for static typing because of all its issues, which shouldn't be taken as proof that static typing is bad, especially when there are plenty of great languages that do use it well.
  - apta 8y ago
    > Java is a bad example for static typing because of all its issues, So are C and golang, even more so arguably.

bunderbunder 8y ago

Kotlin is an improvement insofar as it does a decent job of resolving insanity like the "object-oriented-but-you-have-to-cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back-when-you-say-it" type system. But it's still not a great example for static typing, insofar as you're still working with Java's half-baked type semantics where the set of types the language understands is a superset of the set of types that are expressible on the underlying platform. Meaning that the set of types that can exist is quite a bit (I'm guessing uncountably infinitely) larger than the set of types that you can non-contortively deal with when doing generic programming. Scala gets around this by attempting to extend the type system in deeply incompatible ways. Which mostly works, as long as you don't care about compatibility. Clojure gets around this through a combination of dynamic typing and Rich Hickey including a section titled "I Don't Need Any Sour Grapes" in every lecture he delivers in public. Of the three, TBH, I think Clojure has the best approach. You can't build proper static typing on top of the JVM without breaking compatibility with the rest of the Java ecosystem. At which point, why bother with the JVM at all?

jplayer01 8y ago
You're right, yes. Thanks for elaborating.

apta 8y ago

> the worst example for a typing system Not nearly as C or golang.

jplayer01 8y ago
Well, we were talking about static/strong typing. Java is a bad example for static typing because of all its issues, which shouldn't be taken as proof that static typing is bad, especially when there are plenty of great languages that do use it well.
- apta 8y ago
  > Java is a bad example for static typing because of all its issues, So are C and golang, even more so arguably.