3 ms·
Yeah, Rich Feldman has a good talk on this, entitled Why Static Typing Came Back[1]. It makes a good argument that static typing can recover most of the advanta
by raphlinus 3y ago
Yeah, Rich Feldman has a good talk on this, entitled Why Static Typing Came Back[1]. It makes a good argument that static typing can recover most of the advantages traditionally accounted to dynamic typing. Rapid iteration you can get from incremental compilers, being concise you can get from powerful type inference, etc. Conversely, the advantages of static typing (largely boiling down to increased reliability) cannot easily be captured by dynamically typed languages. Gradual typing, particularly successful by TypeScript, might be an interesting middle ground, or it might just be a reflection of the dynamic history of JS.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tml94je2edk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tml94je2edk
- munificent 3y agoThis talk is so good!
- weatherlight 3y agoit's a good talk. the static typing (of the future) at the end of the video isn't, say, the static typing of C# or Java. Static typing should be more like OCaml, Elm, Rust, Haskell (and ideally Roc)