4 ms·

> What is happening here is a big rift in the programmers community between the "I'm productive in it so it is great" and the "I prefer to use strong typing and

by Zababa 5y ago

> What is happening here is a big rift in the programmers community between the "I'm productive in it so it is great" and the "I prefer to use strong typing and proofs to ensure it does not break at runtime". I think the opposite, the rift has been healing. It seemed that it was pretty big in the 2010's (Python/Ruby/Perl vs Java/C#/C++) but these days we have TypeScript, Rust, Kotlin; Java and C# are getting better too (type inference), Python and Ruby are getting typechecking.

cies 5y ago
> healing > these days we have TypeScript, Rust, Kotlin; Java and C# are getting better too (type inference), Python and Ruby are getting typechecking everyone caves to the types. i think the strongest holdout is probably the LISP/Clojure corner. they have optional typing for along time, but it is not used that much afaik many have voiced their reasons for liking dynamic typing. i only have one: faster reload cycles while developing. the other pros of dynamic typing are all over shadowed by their inherent downsides.
- smasher164 5y ago
  It's a false dichotomy. If you defer type-checking to runtime, you have a traditional dynamically typed language. Haskell has this in the form of -fdefer-type-errors, but I'd like to see this feature given more emphasis and used in other languages.
  - cies 5y ago
    I've not seen it work (not in Haskell, not in other strong typed langs). Java with IntelliJ does quite well, but then it is VM based and not very strongly typed. Kotlin has a much better type system, but then compile times start to become much more noticeable as well. In heard OCaml has a quick reloads in some scenarios, but I never tried.
    - KwisaksHaderach 5y ago
      You are looking for Golang ;)
      - cies 5y ago
        You are right. I have no experience with Go, but that's a fast compiler for sure. Though they miss out heavily in the typing strength. If only it had Result/Either/Maybe types in the std lib from day 1, and proper sum types with some pattern matching switch statement, that would have made the language soooooo much better. I find Elm also has good compile times. Maybe polymorphism and/or type-classes are what is hard to optimize.
- Zababa 5y ago
  > everyone caves to the types. In a way, but static languages have also heavily invested in ergonomics. Type inference is the best example I think. On the other hand, there are also other stuff like immutability that's getting popular in both languages. It seems like 10 years before you had to choose between developing software fast and developing reliable software, these days it's easier to have both.

by Zababa 5y ago

cies 5y ago

> healing > these days we have TypeScript, Rust, Kotlin; Java and C# are getting better too (type inference), Python and Ruby are getting typechecking everyone caves to the types. i think the strongest holdout is probably the LISP/Clojure corner. they have optional typing for along time, but it is not used that much afaik many have voiced their reasons for liking dynamic typing. i only have one: faster reload cycles while developing. the other pros of dynamic typing are all over shadowed by their inherent downsides.

smasher164 5y ago
It's a false dichotomy. If you defer type-checking to runtime, you have a traditional dynamically typed language. Haskell has this in the form of -fdefer-type-errors, but I'd like to see this feature given more emphasis and used in other languages.
- cies 5y ago
  I've not seen it work (not in Haskell, not in other strong typed langs). Java with IntelliJ does quite well, but then it is VM based and not very strongly typed. Kotlin has a much better type system, but then compile times start to become much more noticeable as well. In heard OCaml has a quick reloads in some scenarios, but I never tried.
  - KwisaksHaderach 5y ago
    You are looking for Golang ;)
    - cies 5y ago
      You are right. I have no experience with Go, but that's a fast compiler for sure. Though they miss out heavily in the typing strength. If only it had Result/Either/Maybe types in the std lib from day 1, and proper sum types with some pattern matching switch statement, that would have made the language soooooo much better. I find Elm also has good compile times. Maybe polymorphism and/or type-classes are what is hard to optimize.
Zababa 5y ago
> everyone caves to the types. In a way, but static languages have also heavily invested in ergonomics. Type inference is the best example I think. On the other hand, there are also other stuff like immutability that's getting popular in both languages. It seems like 10 years before you had to choose between developing software fast and developing reliable software, these days it's easier to have both.