3 ms·
Strong typing makes it easier to reason about the correctness of your program. So even if you don't compile, you can reason about it (i.e. check your code). If
by groby_b 16y ago
Strong typing makes it easier to reason about the correctness of your program. So even if you don't compile, you can reason about it (i.e. check your code). If that is important to you, strong might be the better choice. (Keep in mind it also carries an implementation cost)
If the point of the language is to enable rapid prototyping, you want to be forgiving of errors. They're usually a simple oversight that doesn't significantly impact the outcome of the prototype.
I've oversimplified about a gazillion times. But ultimately, it boils down to "what is the point of your language". There is no absolute "better" for this argument.
- bendmorris 16y agoThe goal is rapid prototyping. I'd also say that these types of operations can be considered features and not necessarily errors. While string + number is probably usually an error (who hasn't done that at least once), in Scotch, the + operator represents not only addition but list construction and concatenation - so Scotch's + is equal to +, ++, and : from Haskell.