4 ms·
That's probably part of it. Another possible factor: When I was at Google there was a similar phenomenon where any sufficiently complicated Python system seeme
by xenomachina 5y ago
That's probably part of it.
Another possible factor: When I was at Google there was a similar phenomenon where any sufficiently complicated Python system seemed to get reimplemented in something with static types. A problem we had with Python (and I imagine this would be true of most Lisps -- yes, I know typed Racket exists) was that once a system got too big to keep in your head all at once, large-scale refactoring became almost impossible without the help of static types.
- bmitc 5y agoI agree that static types is certainly a barrier. My day job is in a dynamic language for the first time ever, and it's certainly been a challenge and learning curve for me. It's in Elixir, so I just seemingly annoy everyone by putting typespecs on everything. Haha. Even if Dialyzer isn't ran, it still provides some documentation on what's going on where. My personal opinion is that there aren't any huge barriers to making static and dynamic types meet more in the middle. There's the gradual typing approach like that in Racket and Typed Racket, but I feel that most of the times dynamic languages are really just dealing with fairly simple anonymous unions. Like a function make take a string or float and return some data structure or a boolean value.
- baq 5y agoyup. fortunately, static typing support in python has made significant progress on both tooling and language fronts in the past few years.