4 ms·

Untyped languages work fine if you use them with microservices. The only thing you can't do is have both untyped and monolithic at the same time.

medo-bear 3y ago
for some reason people are able to use huge undocumented common lisp monolithic projects from the 90s without much effort and without setting their computer on fire. why do you think that is? i mean, given your world view, why would people even think about doing this for a codebase that doesnt have static types?
- lispm 3y ago
  Maybe because the language is not untyped? It has both dynamic typing and optional static typing.
  - medo-bear 3y ago
    sure but not in a sense that rust is. my point is that it is entirely possible to build good software with substantial code bases in dynamically typed languges and i used common lisp as an example. in fact i dont know of one common lisp code base that turned to a dumpster fire because of typing problems. instead i find the opposite true: old forgotten code can often be resurrected because the language promotes clear coding and interactive introspection
    - shrimp_emoji 3y ago
      Lisp is not Python or JS. People use Python and JS, not Lisp. Dynamic typing in Python and JS + medium-sized project = dumpster fire.
      - medo-bear 3y ago
        there are plenty of disaster code bases in both dynamic and static typed languages. my cause for mentioning common lisp was use of an example i personally know of where a dynamic language (albeit one with strong and static typing support available) produces some really high quality code that can stand the test of time
    - lispm 3y ago
      This interactive introspection is usually facilitated by dynamic types and actual types in the software. For example large parts of the Lisp software in the 80s were already written in an object-oriented way, where the code was structured around explicit classes. Means: one sees the classes/methods both in the source code and in the running code. The source is far from 'untyped'. For example the Filesystem Browser (FSEdit) from 1980 was written in Flavors. It actually uses an explicit OOP system with hierarchical classes. https://tumbleweed.nu/r/attic/sys78/file?name=lmfs/fsedit.lisp&ci=tip https://tumbleweed.nu/r/attic/sys78/file?name=lmfs/fsedit.li...
- ReflectedImage 3y ago
  I'm just trying to point you in the right direction. Dynamically typed microservices is where it is at.
  - medo-bear 3y ago
    thanks, but maybe not

medo-bear 3y ago

for some reason people are able to use huge undocumented common lisp monolithic projects from the 90s without much effort and without setting their computer on fire. why do you think that is? i mean, given your world view, why would people even think about doing this for a codebase that doesnt have static types?

lispm 3y ago
Maybe because the language is not untyped? It has both dynamic typing and optional static typing.
- medo-bear 3y ago
  sure but not in a sense that rust is. my point is that it is entirely possible to build good software with substantial code bases in dynamically typed languges and i used common lisp as an example. in fact i dont know of one common lisp code base that turned to a dumpster fire because of typing problems. instead i find the opposite true: old forgotten code can often be resurrected because the language promotes clear coding and interactive introspection
  - shrimp_emoji 3y ago
    Lisp is not Python or JS. People use Python and JS, not Lisp. Dynamic typing in Python and JS + medium-sized project = dumpster fire.
    - medo-bear 3y ago
      there are plenty of disaster code bases in both dynamic and static typed languages. my cause for mentioning common lisp was use of an example i personally know of where a dynamic language (albeit one with strong and static typing support available) produces some really high quality code that can stand the test of time
  - lispm 3y ago
    This interactive introspection is usually facilitated by dynamic types and actual types in the software. For example large parts of the Lisp software in the 80s were already written in an object-oriented way, where the code was structured around explicit classes. Means: one sees the classes/methods both in the source code and in the running code. The source is far from 'untyped'. For example the Filesystem Browser (FSEdit) from 1980 was written in Flavors. It actually uses an explicit OOP system with hierarchical classes. https://tumbleweed.nu/r/attic/sys78/file?name=lmfs/fsedit.lisp&ci=tip https://tumbleweed.nu/r/attic/sys78/file?name=lmfs/fsedit.li...
ReflectedImage 3y ago
I'm just trying to point you in the right direction. Dynamically typed microservices is where it is at.
- medo-bear 3y ago
  thanks, but maybe not