3 ms·

Statically typed languages (or at least the good ones) are disciplined so the programmer doesn't have to. If you can work reliably with dynamic typing, that me

Statically typed languages (or at least the good ones) are disciplined so the programmer doesn't have to. If you can work reliably with dynamic typing, that means you are very disciplined about giving the right data to the right function, in exactly the right form. That you are very disciplined about tests, possibly including fairly stupid-looking unit tests (which aren't actually stupid, at least in a dynamic context). Adding static typing on top of that wouldn't help much of course. When I write something from scratch however, I found that static typing actually speeds up my development. It's less work, not more. Because I don't have to write as many tests, or even worry about huge classes of errors — the compiler (and if I'm lucky, my editor/IDE) just checks them for me. I don't know the work you do, but I bet that your style could benefit from some static checks. Perhaps not the mainstream ones, but your scripts work somehow, don't they? That mean they respect a number of invariants, some of which could certainly be checked at compile time, saving you significant time on stupid bugs. The result won't be TypeScript or Rust, but I don't think it would be fully dynamically typed either.

orwin 6y ago
Yes. Try prototyping for a quick POC/casual demo with javascript, then try with typescript. If you get back to your demo two month later (or have one other person to explain your code to), typescript is Infinitely superior. For quick hacks types are not useful though.
- i6ruce 6y ago
  Unless you're quite experienced with them and use as a thinking tool and not as burden.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
I can second the experience. I write a lot of Common Lisp, and these days it's typed Common Lisp for me. It adds very little overhead in terms of code writing speed, but continuously stops me from making stupid mistakes (like e.g. forgetting a function I'm calling returns a sequence and treating it as a scalar value). My comfort of writing is much better, because I spend less time in interactive debugger hunting my own typos.
asiachick 6y ago
how many times have you not used bash/dos/pwsh scripts because it's not typed? Maybe there's a place for both?
- Aeolun 6y ago
  Javascript is for scripts that fit in one file. Anything else is typescripy.
- loup-vaillant 6y ago
  I can say what I do use Bash for: create files & directories, and simple string replacements in files. Anything more involved goes into a proper program. Usually OCaml, though I can fall back to more mainstream languages (Python, C) if I need a wide audience to be able to read it, and the program is simple enough that types aren't really a problem to begin with.
williamdclt 6y ago
> I found that static typing actually speeds up my development. It's less work, not more. It's a point that comes back often, and that I totally agree with so it's worth reiterating. In addition to the improved dev tooling (autocompletion, hinting, refactoring), being able to write large swathes of code without actually running it and being 100% confident that it's all _valid_ (not bug-free of course) just takes a huge load off my mind. Of course, there's huge differences between languages like Java and languages like Typescript. Talking about "typed languages" as a homogenous concept often doesn't make a lot of sense
- pansa2 6y ago
  > being able to write large swathes of code without actually running it and being 100% confident that it's all _valid_ (not bug-free of course) just takes a huge load off my mind. I've heard similar things before, e.g. "static typing allows you to find bugs in your code without even running it". Perhaps the reason I'm a fan of dynamically-typed languages is that I don't see the benefit of this. Maybe my workflow is unusual, but I don't write code without running it - I run tests every time I add a few lines.
  - adnzzzzZ 6y ago
    I think the same. This is especially true for games where you're absolutely running the game again for everything you change, and in case anything is wrong it's generally very obvious visually.
  - loup-vaillant 6y ago
    OCaml has a REPL. I use it all the time to check that a new function I just wrote is correct. Yet I still get huge benefits from the static typing: many of my errors are stupid type errors, and having the type checker tell me about them, rather than a runtime error (or worse, a wrong result), makes early prototyping much faster. Even if I already have a REPL. I believe the main reason is because the type checker is much closer to the source of my errors than runtime checks or tests are.
  - nonbirithm 6y ago

orwin 6y ago

Yes. Try prototyping for a quick POC/casual demo with javascript, then try with typescript. If you get back to your demo two month later (or have one other person to explain your code to), typescript is Infinitely superior. For quick hacks types are not useful though.

i6ruce 6y ago
Unless you're quite experienced with them and use as a thinking tool and not as burden.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

I can second the experience. I write a lot of Common Lisp, and these days it's typed Common Lisp for me. It adds very little overhead in terms of code writing speed, but continuously stops me from making stupid mistakes (like e.g. forgetting a function I'm calling returns a sequence and treating it as a scalar value). My comfort of writing is much better, because I spend less time in interactive debugger hunting my own typos.

asiachick 6y ago

how many times have you not used bash/dos/pwsh scripts because it's not typed? Maybe there's a place for both?

Aeolun 6y ago
Javascript is for scripts that fit in one file. Anything else is typescripy.
loup-vaillant 6y ago
I can say what I do use Bash for: create files & directories, and simple string replacements in files. Anything more involved goes into a proper program. Usually OCaml, though I can fall back to more mainstream languages (Python, C) if I need a wide audience to be able to read it, and the program is simple enough that types aren't really a problem to begin with.

williamdclt 6y ago

> I found that static typing actually speeds up my development. It's less work, not more. It's a point that comes back often, and that I totally agree with so it's worth reiterating. In addition to the improved dev tooling (autocompletion, hinting, refactoring), being able to write large swathes of code without actually running it and being 100% confident that it's all _valid_ (not bug-free of course) just takes a huge load off my mind. Of course, there's huge differences between languages like Java and languages like Typescript. Talking about "typed languages" as a homogenous concept often doesn't make a lot of sense

pansa2 6y ago
> being able to write large swathes of code without actually running it and being 100% confident that it's all _valid_ (not bug-free of course) just takes a huge load off my mind. I've heard similar things before, e.g. "static typing allows you to find bugs in your code without even running it". Perhaps the reason I'm a fan of dynamically-typed languages is that I don't see the benefit of this. Maybe my workflow is unusual, but I don't write code without running it - I run tests every time I add a few lines.
- adnzzzzZ 6y ago
  I think the same. This is especially true for games where you're absolutely running the game again for everything you change, and in case anything is wrong it's generally very obvious visually.
- loup-vaillant 6y ago
  OCaml has a REPL. I use it all the time to check that a new function I just wrote is correct. Yet I still get huge benefits from the static typing: many of my errors are stupid type errors, and having the type checker tell me about them, rather than a runtime error (or worse, a wrong result), makes early prototyping much faster. Even if I already have a REPL. I believe the main reason is because the type checker is much closer to the source of my errors than runtime checks or tests are.
- nonbirithm 6y ago