15 ms·
So you don't know any successful projects in JavaScript, Clojure, Erlang, Elixir, Groovy, Julia, R, etc. etc. etc.? ;) There are well-known advantages and repe
by beders 6y ago
So you don't know any successful projects in JavaScript, Clojure, Erlang, Elixir, Groovy, Julia, R, etc. etc. etc.? ;)
There are well-known advantages and repeating them here will incite another flame-war.
I can only speak from my 35 years of coding experience, spending most of that time in the confines of static typing:
Most problems I solve today are not good fits for static types. They cause major headaches along the road as your customer's needs change and as I get a better understanding of the problem domain.
- traverseda 6y agoJavascript is probably not a great example, as it's my goto when I think "this would be better if the language was better".
- vosper 6y agoNonetheless, there are loads of successful projects written in Javascript, which was GPs point (not the quality of the language).
- zozbot234 6y ago> Most problems I solve today are not good fits for static types. This would seem to involve a widespread misconception about what static types are really about. Languages that "don't have static types" are not inherently more flexible than languages that do expose them; one can always translate a "dynamic" program structure to a statically-typed language in a way that preserves arbitrary flexibility in refactoring, prototyping and the like. Many languages even provide a standard `Dynamic` type for this very purpose.
- beders 6y agoYeah, which makes them so generic they become meaningless, like generic_map, generic_attribute...no thanks. If you want to define, transform and reason about your domain model at runtime, dynamic languages are the way to go. I know, I've been using static typing for most of my career. They become a burden, refactoring or not. Now go back to your Haskell corner ;)