3 ms·
Author here. Please read the post, I actually said "Strong static typing" in the post itself (starting from the first paragraph), it just didn't look good in th
by tasn 3y ago
Author here. Please read the post, I actually said "Strong static typing" in the post itself (starting from the first paragraph), it just didn't look good in the title. :)
- rdtsc 3y agoThat’s an important distinction. Why not just use “Static Typing”. Yeah, the word “strong” sounds strong and cool, but since it’s something you’re betting your life on, it doesn’t hurt to be a bit more precise.
- xmcqdpt2 3y agoC is weakly but statically typed. You can just void * all the things.
- dartos 3y agoYeah, but your first point is specifically a weakness of weak types, not dynamic types. I don’t really see any arguments against dynamic typing in there. Most strong, dynamically typed languages also have good developer tooling (elixir and dialyzer for example) and have built in ways of describing data structures.
- tasn 3y agoThere's a section about catching everything at compile time rather than runtime which is very much about. I think there's a lot of value at knowing when things go bad at compile time, rather than runtime.
- js2 3y agoPlease add static to the title. Most of the comments are referring to the current title and haven't read the article.
- tasn 3y agoYeah, I just did, thanks!