3 ms·

Many dynamically typed languages have static analyzers, but retain the flexibility of not needing to prescribe types up front (it’s impossible to know exactly w

by dartos 3y ago

Many dynamically typed languages have static analyzers, but retain the flexibility of not needing to prescribe types up front (it’s impossible to know exactly what data structure you need at the start of a project) That’s the crux of why I’m not all in on static typing all the time. (Especially for networked programs that expect a wide range of different kinds of input) Having to prescribe the types I need before I actually need them goes against how I tend to build.

sfn42 3y ago
Sounds like you'd like C#. It does type inference with `var` and similar things, so you don't always have to specify types explicitly, but everything does have a type at compile time.
- Smaug123 3y ago
  (C#'s type inference is so much worse than F#'s. I find it deeply painful to go back.)
loup-vaillant 3y ago
> Many dynamically typed languages have static analyzers, but retain the flexibility of not needing to prescribe types up front Almost all static type systems have escape hatches that let you go dynamic when you really really need it. Also, I bet that most of your use cases for dynamic typing could be solved with a simple tagged union. Most people bemoaning the lack of flexibility of static typing just don’t know about how tagged unions can easily emulate dynamic typing when we need it, such that we rarely even need to reach for the actual escape hatches. > (it’s impossible to know exactly what data structure you need at the start of a project) Thankfully data structures are even easier to change with static typing: change it, gets a ton of type errors, fix them, done. With dynamic typing you run the risk of missing a call site. > Having to prescribe the types I need before I actually need them goes against how I tend to build. There’s type inference for that. I personally take advantage of it any chance I get.

by dartos 3y ago

sfn42 3y ago

Sounds like you'd like C#. It does type inference with `var` and similar things, so you don't always have to specify types explicitly, but everything does have a type at compile time.

Smaug123 3y ago
(C#'s type inference is so much worse than F#'s. I find it deeply painful to go back.)

loup-vaillant 3y ago

> Many dynamically typed languages have static analyzers, but retain the flexibility of not needing to prescribe types up front Almost all static type systems have escape hatches that let you go dynamic when you really really need it. Also, I bet that most of your use cases for dynamic typing could be solved with a simple tagged union. Most people bemoaning the lack of flexibility of static typing just don’t know about how tagged unions can easily emulate dynamic typing when we need it, such that we rarely even need to reach for the actual escape hatches. > (it’s impossible to know exactly what data structure you need at the start of a project) Thankfully data structures are even easier to change with static typing: change it, gets a ton of type errors, fix them, done. With dynamic typing you run the risk of missing a call site. > Having to prescribe the types I need before I actually need them goes against how I tend to build. There’s type inference for that. I personally take advantage of it any chance I get.