4 ms·
Yes but if you were Tabula Rasa you would ship out software features 3x faster with significantly less bugs using dynamic typing than if you used static typing.
by ReflectedImage 3y ago
Yes but if you were Tabula Rasa you would ship out software features 3x faster with significantly less bugs using dynamic typing than if you used static typing.
- magicalhippo 3y agoThat is quite frankly a ridiculous, unsubstantiated statement.
- mpweiher 3y agoSmalltalk’s Proven Productivity https://medium.com/smalltalk-talk/smalltalk-s-proven-productivity-fe7cbd99c061 https://medium.com/smalltalk-talk/smalltalk-s-proven-product... http://www.ifpug.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/IYSM.-Thirty-years-of-IFPUG.-Software-Economics-and-Function-Point-Metrics-Capers-Jones.pdf http://www.ifpug.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/IYSM.-Thirty...
- igouy 3y agoBoth links reference the same source material — "Table 16: Side-by-Side Comparison of function points and lines of code metrics" Seems like a comparison of Smalltalk using an IDE and Java using Notepad? Not really credible is it.
- ReflectedImage 3y agoThere are tons of other sources saying the same thing. Static typing might be the popular fad on Hacker News but all the evidence points against it.
- igouy 3y agoPlease provide some sources saying something about Smalltalk's Proven Productivity.
- magicalhippo 3y agoThank you for proving my point. Nowhere near 3x and not even consistently better than static typing.
- ReflectedImage 3y agoAs someone who codes in both static and dynamic typed languages commercially, 3x is around the correct figure.
- magicalhippo 3y agoFor you perhaps. With over 30 years of programming experience I feel very confident it's not the case for me.
- ReflectedImage 3y agoI'm too lazy to learn how to use something isn't a very good argument :)
- magicalhippo 3y agoGood thing that isn't the argument I'm making then.