3 ms·
> which can be equally dangerous Bash is weakly typed, which is a different concept than dynamic typing. Dynamically typed languages prevent bugs that weakly
by pizza234 6y ago
> which can be equally dangerous
Bash is weakly typed, which is a different concept than dynamic typing.
Dynamically typed languages prevent bugs that weakly typed languages don't, so from this point of view, the latter are unambiguously "more dangerous" than the former.
- 0x8BADF00D 6y agoA dynamic type system is an incremental improvement over a weakly typed type system, and still will not guard against runtime errors. They are equally dangerous w.r.t runtime errors.
- dasyatidprime 6y agoNot that I endorse the “equally dangerous” comment, but if you're interested in configuration management with a language based around a powerful static type system, may I note the existence of Propellor? https://propellor.branchable.com/ https://propellor.branchable.com/
- pizza234 6y agoThe concept of "guard against runtime errors" doesn't make much sense. Technically speaking, even languages with strong safeguards (random examples: Golang, Rust) can't "guard against runtime errors", because it's possible to panic a program by performing an out-of-bounds array access (which classifies as "runtime error" in a very strict sense). A concept that makes sense is the amount of safeguards provided by a language (/type system), however, this depends entirely on the use case; it's an intentional choice of the developer.