3 ms·
I think it's less funny and more an endorsement of how good tooling has gotten over the last few years. Intellisense et al. have changed the game so that you ca
by fastball 5y ago
I think it's less funny and more an endorsement of how good tooling has gotten over the last few years. Intellisense et al. have changed the game so that you can actually be more productive from the start with statically typed languages because the inference (and UX/DX to utilize those inferences) is so much better than with dynamic/duck typing.
- emodendroket 5y agoThat was true when they were talking it up too and was acknowledged as the final frontier by boosters (look at the Yegge article on this topic, for instance, which spends a fair bit of time on the topic and how it could be improved http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/05/dynamic-languages-strike-back.html http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/05/dynamic-languages-st...). If anything, those tools have made truly impressive strides even in hard cases like JS and Ruby.
- stickfigure 5y agoLast few years? Java IDEs have been doing this for decades (plural). C++ IDEs for another decade beyond that.
- tonyedgecombe 5y agoC++ IDEs lagged Java IDEs on this stuff.
- stickfigure 5y agoC++ IDEs predate the existence of Java, let alone Java IDEs. Microsoft Visual C++ was excellent for the time, and did most of what you expect a modern IDE to do. In 1993.
- tonyedgecombe 5y agoVisual C++ didn't get Intellisense until 1997 and even then it was poor. C++ has never caught up with the tooling that Java and .Net developers have.
- stickfigure 5y agoIt may not have been branded as "Intellisense" but I remember Visual C++ did many forms of code completion back in the mid 90s. It was quite good for its time. I also used Visual J++ towards the late 90s. Its code completion was good as well. IDEs are great now, but they were plenty good back then too. This is not something new under the sun. The benefits of static typing have been around for a long, long time.