3 ms·
this is putting the cart before the horse given that in any real-world facing application it's not the language that determines the shape of the program but the
by Barrin92 4y ago
this is putting the cart before the horse given that in any real-world facing application it's not the language that determines the shape of the program but the data and rest of the world that interfaces with your program.
Dynamic languages are in many ways simply a recognition of that fact, namely that data is sparse, incremental, changes and accretes and so on. There's a reason languages like Idris, Haskell and so forth are much more popular in solipsistic domains like theorem-proving than they are in a business application.
- still_grokking 4y ago> There's a reason languages like Idris, Haskell and so forth are much more popular in solipsistic domains like theorem-proving than they are in a business application. Scala developers would disagree. Especially in business applications strong static types are extremely helpful to prevent bugs and model the domains of interest in a proper way.
- ykonstant 4y agoI agree; I would expect to see such languages feature much more prominently there, especially in the subtle and convoluted business/legal complex. One may argue that the proof-strength formality can be a hindrance: in such domains, inconsistencies and contradictions abound, and some of them cannot be predicted in advance. But I believe that languages like Idris can accommodate this. Maybe I am wrong, or maybe they can, but not more efficiently than more free-form languages. ...but ok, I am failing to see what I can do with COBOL that I cannot do with Idris, business-logic-wise. lol