3 ms·

Static types are great for Fungeable Programmer at Big Co. where you can be dropped into a project and it sort of gives you a way to figure out what's present i

Static types are great for Fungeable Programmer at Big Co. where you can be dropped into a project and it sort of gives you a way to figure out what's present in the code. However, if you need to get somewhere fast, be it a side project where you've only got so much time due to other constraints in life, or it's a product you're trying to get to market first with a small team, then you're not going to benefit from ossifying statically typed languages - you're going to reach for something that's interactive, powerful, and not bogged down in edit/compile/test cycles. You're going to instead reach for something like Common Lisp, Ruby, Python etc. Once you're making $COMFY_DOLLARS_PER_MONTH you can then pass it off to some re-write team, though.

chriskrycho 6y ago
I think this is a false dichotomy. When I’m knocking out something as quickly as possible, I actually prefer statically typed languages. I have some quirks b/c of my particular background (my formative years were a constant mix of C and C++ and PHP and JS), so I often build even “script”-like tools in Rust instead of Python or Ruby or whatever. I find the ability to refactor rapidly is increased for me as I work in languages like Rust, ReasonML, etc. But I also work with and know folks who are absolutely brilliant, who build large systems carefully and slowly… living almost 100% in the REPL of a dynamic programming language. This approach is not the one I prefer, and in fact when I’ve tried it it has kind of driven me batty. But this doesn’t seem to be a function of either competence or context whatsoever (though certainly types do help somewhat in the Working In Any Sufficiently Large Codebase scenario); it seems to be a function of cognitive style.