3 ms·
I'm a static typing person, too, but considering how wildly popular dynamic languages are for Web development, it's hard to take blanket criticism like this ser
by bunderbunder 8y ago
I'm a static typing person, too, but considering how wildly popular dynamic languages are for Web development, it's hard to take blanket criticism like this seriously.
As far as large projects go, my own experience has been that the dirty truth is that, past a certain size, nothing is statically typed, anyway. Either it's decomposed into a bunch of smaller services that communicate using a weakly-typed messaging system, or it's a monolith that resorts to some sort of stringly typed mechanism for communication among the major components. I know the speakers at tech conferences say we're supposed to keep it strongly typed and use a ports and adapters pattern to limit the scope of impact for type changes, but that just doesn't seem to be how it ever happens in practice.
It makes me think that the Clojure folks might really be on to something, and that, for large business applications, static typing is trying to solve the wrong problem. I'd personally love to get a chance to take its specs system for a spin.