3 ms·
That description was meant for those who don't understand programming, weak & strong typing, & type inference. It is a good enough description for those who don
by varikin 15y ago
That description was meant for those who don't understand programming, weak & strong typing, & type inference. It is a good enough description for those who don't know and will never care to know more.
I understand the importance of defining thing correctly, but does the average person need to care or worry about the difference between strongly/weakly typed & statically/dynamically typed?
- sjs 15y agoProbably not, that's certainly a fair point. But in that case why go into it at all? Just say it's magic "faster" juice (and don't post it to HN). One thing I'm curious about as a developer is how this is different than the type inference that SpiderMonkey already did. The JIT certainly didn't represent numbers as strings in memory or something equally silly prior to this new type inference. Is it better inference that optimizes away boxing or can optimize across function calls or something? (Just musing "out loud", I don't expect answers to these questions here on HN.)