3 ms·
They can also be more difficult to refactor and adjust at a later date. This can be especially problematic if you're in an environment where logic needs to be a
by osrec 7y ago
They can also be more difficult to refactor and adjust at a later date. This can be especially problematic if you're in an environment where logic needs to be altered rapidly in response to changing external conditions/requirements.
- dahfizz 7y agoThe added "difficulty" is just the cost of doing a proper, correct refactor. Dynamic languages are not helpful just because they let you write bugs faster.
- chrisan 7y agoI wouldnt even call that difficulty. That is a bloody loved feature in my book
- sjy 7y agoDevelopers are expensive though. If dynamic languages let you write buggy code in half the time that it would take to write perfect code in a static language, that would be an acceptable trade-off in many contexts.
- walshemj 7y agoFixing bug later on get progressively more expensive, I though we had got over the KLOC metric decades ago.
- adwn 7y ago> If dynamic languages let you write buggy code in half the time that it would take to write perfect code in a static language, that would be an acceptable trade-off in many contexts. Shit at 50% off is still shit. You're not being paid to produce shit, even if you might be really, really efficient at doing so.
- sjy 7y agoI assure you that many developers are being paid to produce shit.
- walshemj 7y agoCan you give some examples why - do you mean changing a variables type? that should jut be a matter of a find and replace.