4 ms·

Typescript doesn't strike me as a multi-fold improvement. Dynamic vs static typing is an age-old debate, and in general, advocates can be found arguing that mov

by gfodor 6y ago

Typescript doesn't strike me as a multi-fold improvement. Dynamic vs static typing is an age-old debate, and in general, advocates can be found arguing that moving your code in either direction results in benefits. So, regardless of your stance on it, it seems unlikely to be unambiguously beneficial. Many large programs exist written in dynamic languages that do just fine.

throwaway894345 6y ago
It seems like it's trending toward static, at least recently. I think the big driver for this is the popularization of statically typed languages that aren't C++ and Java. A lot of people had painful experiences with C++ and Java and attributed that pain to static typing. It's now more clear that static typing is a net benefit, but it must be implemented reasonably and it doesn't solve other language design issues. Also, C++ and Java have each evolved some rudimentary type inference, which improves ergonomics (although I think excessive type inference a la Haskell actually makes it harder to debug issues--the sweet spot seems to be function-scoped type inference).
- gfodor 6y ago
  Hard to say. It seems as cyclic as anything else. Hard to tease apart real benefit from the usual fad/hype cycles. Ruby, Python, Erlang/Elixir, Lisp/Clojure, etc, all doing just fine without it. (Some, with some lightweight annotative-oriented typing for a subset of projects.) The best counterargument to static typing I can articulate is that in general, the only way to be sure software works is to run it. And so, ultimately you need to backstop your software with testing, QA, and observability infrastructure to actually execute it and validate it. At that point, the question is what marginal gains remain from catching a subset of those problems at complile time, also incorporating a potential a false sense of security which may lead to less actual execution validation, and more user-facing issues. The other potential tradeoff of static typing is if the software design and architecture changes for better or worse, or if the velocity of shipping changes changes. I believe there isn't yet any hard evidence of which way this tilts in either case. There's also a lot of innovation in the area of validation-by-execution as well, and so I think that will result in continual debate: state-of-the-art static typing may benefit compared to yesterday's testing/fuzzing tools, but may not compared to state-of-the-art testing/fuzzing tools, for example.
  - pacala 6y ago
    One of the greatest boons of static typing is formal documentation of data structures and interfaces. Catching errors early is a bonus :)
  - mercer 6y ago
    I'm not disagreeing per se, but at least in the Elixir community I get the impression that using Dialyzer (the wonderfully cryptic TS-ish gradual typing solution) and typespecs is increasingly advised and there's a thirst for a better solution. But static typing comes up a lot. We're doing fine without, but it's definitely a sore point and I'm one of those developers who has become more and more fond of static typing.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    Python is trending toward types via support for type annotations. My extensive experience with Python and Go leads me to the conclusion that it’s very difficult to write even moderately complex and maintainable Python code at scale. This doesn’t mean that no one can make money with Python—far from it—only that they would make even more money via Go (iterate faster and spend less time fixing bugs). Of course this can’t necessarily be extended to other languages. C++ and Rust would not be as productive up front than Python and C++ would probably not save you any time fixing bugs. A lisp might be faster to develop in than Go and Python without incurring too many type errors. There are too many variables to make sweeping statements, but all else equal, in my experience, static typing is better than dynamic typing. But again, there are many other variables that can cause a dynamically typed language to outperform a statically typed language for iteration velocity or bug reduction.
- mettamage 6y ago
  Yea, this is why I posted it. To me it seems: - Small codebase. Fine, use both. - Medium codebase. Fine, use both. - Large codebase. You're definitely going to have some typing bugs with dynamically typed languages. - Humongous codebase. You're definitely going to have many typing bugs with dynamically typed languages.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    I'll say that we have a small-medium code base and we see lots and lots of dynamic typing errors in production every day. I would also say "even though we have lots of people who are experienced Python developers", but I think it's actually because we have so many developers who have only developed seriously in dynamically typed languages and don't "think in types" if you will.
    - blackrock 6y ago
      Can’t you write the Python functions to force check the input parameter for its type? And error out if not. This should enable you to catch most errors immediately during development.
      - mixmastamyk 6y ago
        Yes, but easier to just write tests.
        throwaway894345 6y ago
        And easier still just to use static types.
        mixmastamyk 6y ago
        Often not, if the overhead of adding them outweighs their utility for the project.
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
- oalae5niMiel7qu 6y ago
  The trend toward static typing is a fad, like NoSQL in the early 2010s. Who knows what the next fad will be. Perhaps correctness proofs will make a comeback.

by gfodor 6y ago

throwaway894345 6y ago

It seems like it's trending toward static, at least recently. I think the big driver for this is the popularization of statically typed languages that aren't C++ and Java. A lot of people had painful experiences with C++ and Java and attributed that pain to static typing. It's now more clear that static typing is a net benefit, but it must be implemented reasonably and it doesn't solve other language design issues. Also, C++ and Java have each evolved some rudimentary type inference, which improves ergonomics (although I think excessive type inference a la Haskell actually makes it harder to debug issues--the sweet spot seems to be function-scoped type inference).

gfodor 6y ago
Hard to say. It seems as cyclic as anything else. Hard to tease apart real benefit from the usual fad/hype cycles. Ruby, Python, Erlang/Elixir, Lisp/Clojure, etc, all doing just fine without it. (Some, with some lightweight annotative-oriented typing for a subset of projects.) The best counterargument to static typing I can articulate is that in general, the only way to be sure software works is to run it. And so, ultimately you need to backstop your software with testing, QA, and observability infrastructure to actually execute it and validate it. At that point, the question is what marginal gains remain from catching a subset of those problems at complile time, also incorporating a potential a false sense of security which may lead to less actual execution validation, and more user-facing issues. The other potential tradeoff of static typing is if the software design and architecture changes for better or worse, or if the velocity of shipping changes changes. I believe there isn't yet any hard evidence of which way this tilts in either case. There's also a lot of innovation in the area of validation-by-execution as well, and so I think that will result in continual debate: state-of-the-art static typing may benefit compared to yesterday's testing/fuzzing tools, but may not compared to state-of-the-art testing/fuzzing tools, for example.
- pacala 6y ago
  One of the greatest boons of static typing is formal documentation of data structures and interfaces. Catching errors early is a bonus :)
- mercer 6y ago
  I'm not disagreeing per se, but at least in the Elixir community I get the impression that using Dialyzer (the wonderfully cryptic TS-ish gradual typing solution) and typespecs is increasingly advised and there's a thirst for a better solution. But static typing comes up a lot. We're doing fine without, but it's definitely a sore point and I'm one of those developers who has become more and more fond of static typing.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  Python is trending toward types via support for type annotations. My extensive experience with Python and Go leads me to the conclusion that it’s very difficult to write even moderately complex and maintainable Python code at scale. This doesn’t mean that no one can make money with Python—far from it—only that they would make even more money via Go (iterate faster and spend less time fixing bugs). Of course this can’t necessarily be extended to other languages. C++ and Rust would not be as productive up front than Python and C++ would probably not save you any time fixing bugs. A lisp might be faster to develop in than Go and Python without incurring too many type errors. There are too many variables to make sweeping statements, but all else equal, in my experience, static typing is better than dynamic typing. But again, there are many other variables that can cause a dynamically typed language to outperform a statically typed language for iteration velocity or bug reduction.
mettamage 6y ago
Yea, this is why I posted it. To me it seems: - Small codebase. Fine, use both. - Medium codebase. Fine, use both. - Large codebase. You're definitely going to have some typing bugs with dynamically typed languages. - Humongous codebase. You're definitely going to have many typing bugs with dynamically typed languages.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  I'll say that we have a small-medium code base and we see lots and lots of dynamic typing errors in production every day. I would also say "even though we have lots of people who are experienced Python developers", but I think it's actually because we have so many developers who have only developed seriously in dynamically typed languages and don't "think in types" if you will.
  - blackrock 6y ago
    Can’t you write the Python functions to force check the input parameter for its type? And error out if not. This should enable you to catch most errors immediately during development.
    - mixmastamyk 6y ago
      Yes, but easier to just write tests.
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        And easier still just to use static types.
        mixmastamyk 6y ago
        Often not, if the overhead of adding them outweighs their utility for the project.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
oalae5niMiel7qu 6y ago
The trend toward static typing is a fad, like NoSQL in the early 2010s. Who knows what the next fad will be. Perhaps correctness proofs will make a comeback.