3 ms·

> These estimations are pure imagination There are decades of literature on the matter. You simply have to look for it. Statically typed languages are known

> These estimations are pure imagination There are decades of literature on the matter. You simply have to look for it. Statically typed languages are known to lead to slower initial development times, because languages are inherently more complex and there are more concepts to grasp. usually thy also need to be compiled, which makes times even longer and setups harder. Good news is that long term they tend to be associated with easier maintenance, but it's not totally clear if it's due to static types or the team getting more accustomed to the code base and tools having more metadata to help the programmer. One thing that is unquestionable it's that statically typed languages scale better in large teams. if anything goes well, of course , if you OTOH happen to end up working in places where they use types to build gigantic taxonomies, all the advantages are gone. > Today, almost every Node.js framework supports Typescript out of the box it doesn't follow that TS is great though. It simply says that people building frameworks want to sell them to the larger audience possible. If they could support Java or C++ or Rust, they would. Many Java libraries or frameworks still support Java 8, doesn't mean Java 8 is the greatest Java out there.

bborud 4y ago
> Statically typed languages are known to lead to slower initial > development times I hear people saying that, but I'm not sure I buy it. Is there any research that supports that, and if so, for which languages? Also, what does "initial development" mean here? The first day, week, month, year? And unless your project is trivial, isn't it somewhat important that as much of the initial work as possible provides a solid foundation for the future of the project so it wouldn't pay off skimping on this?
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  PDF: https://www.ics.uci.edu/~jajones/INF102-S18/readings/23_hanenberg.pdf https://www.ics.uci.edu/~jajones/INF102-S18/readings/23_hane... see conclusions intuitively static typing is less forgiving and forces programmers to write code in a specific form think how much time has been wasted writing Java boilerplate code.
  - bborud 4y ago
    To be honest, that looked a bit thin. And the most productivity-killing Java boilerplate is hardly due to its static typing but rather the baroque style required by lots of frameworks. It is important to differentiate between language and how people tend to use it.

bborud 4y ago

> Statically typed languages are known to lead to slower initial > development times I hear people saying that, but I'm not sure I buy it. Is there any research that supports that, and if so, for which languages? Also, what does "initial development" mean here? The first day, week, month, year? And unless your project is trivial, isn't it somewhat important that as much of the initial work as possible provides a solid foundation for the future of the project so it wouldn't pay off skimping on this?

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
PDF: https://www.ics.uci.edu/~jajones/INF102-S18/readings/23_hanenberg.pdf https://www.ics.uci.edu/~jajones/INF102-S18/readings/23_hane... see conclusions intuitively static typing is less forgiving and forces programmers to write code in a specific form think how much time has been wasted writing Java boilerplate code.
- bborud 4y ago
  To be honest, that looked a bit thin. And the most productivity-killing Java boilerplate is hardly due to its static typing but rather the baroque style required by lots of frameworks. It is important to differentiate between language and how people tend to use it.