3 ms·

Because JavaScript is the worse programming language in common commerical usage today. It was designed over several decades by browser manufacturers. Absolute

Because JavaScript is the worse programming language in common commerical usage today. It was designed over several decades by browser manufacturers. Absolute anything else would be better than it. Static typing in Python is a complete disaster when it's used on real commerical projects. I've seen the code thank you very much.

Timon3 3y ago
> Because JavaScript is the worse programming language in common commerical usage today. It was designed over several decades by browser manufacturers. Do you mean "the worst"? There are plenty languages that are worse, and that are still in use. It's not great, but it's also not as terrible as you're making it seem. > Absolute anything else would be better than it. Okay, what does that have to do with static typing? Or are you saying that Typescript is better than Javascript? If static typing can make such "the worse" language better, why can't it improve other languages as well? > Static typing in Python is a complete disaster when it's used on real commerical projects. I've seen the code thank you very much. You make it seem like the alternative, not having static typing, is in any way better. No, it's definitely not - having e.g. your IDE know the types of values to help you in refactoring is extremely valuable, as is having static type checkers tell you about issues before running your code. You either have unknown type problems because you're missing test cases, or you're re-building a static type system in your test suites. There is no way around verifying your assumptions about types if you want to build stable software.
- ReflectedImage 3y ago
  Static typing is a very bad software development practice. There are a lot of other software development practices that are superior to it. "help you in refactoring" It's a terrible way to refactor your code. There are far better and far superior software development practices out there, which do everything static typing does and more. "There is no way around verifying your assumptions about types" Yes, there are. There are many many ways to do this that do a lot better job than static typing. Static typing is known to be terrible at eliminating bugs from code. The complain here is not that static typing isn't better than nothing but that static typing is such a low tier solution, that if you were doing anything proper you wouldn't be touching it.
  - Timon3 3y ago
    > Static typing is a very bad software development practice. There are a lot of other software development practices that are superior to it. Can you give some examples for these supposedly superior techniques? > "help you in refactoring" It's a terrible way to refactor your code. Could you explain why you think so? Say I'm changing the name of an attribute. Why is using static typing to find the places I have to change terrible? > "There is no way around verifying your assumptions about types" Yes, there are. There are many many ways to do this that do a lot better job than static typing. Static typing is known to be terrible at eliminating bugs from code. I didn't say what you think I said, since I didn't touch on static typing in this. Want to try responding to my actual argument?

Timon3 3y ago

> Because JavaScript is the worse programming language in common commerical usage today. It was designed over several decades by browser manufacturers. Do you mean "the worst"? There are plenty languages that are worse, and that are still in use. It's not great, but it's also not as terrible as you're making it seem. > Absolute anything else would be better than it. Okay, what does that have to do with static typing? Or are you saying that Typescript is better than Javascript? If static typing can make such "the worse" language better, why can't it improve other languages as well? > Static typing in Python is a complete disaster when it's used on real commerical projects. I've seen the code thank you very much. You make it seem like the alternative, not having static typing, is in any way better. No, it's definitely not - having e.g. your IDE know the types of values to help you in refactoring is extremely valuable, as is having static type checkers tell you about issues before running your code. You either have unknown type problems because you're missing test cases, or you're re-building a static type system in your test suites. There is no way around verifying your assumptions about types if you want to build stable software.

ReflectedImage 3y ago
Static typing is a very bad software development practice. There are a lot of other software development practices that are superior to it. "help you in refactoring" It's a terrible way to refactor your code. There are far better and far superior software development practices out there, which do everything static typing does and more. "There is no way around verifying your assumptions about types" Yes, there are. There are many many ways to do this that do a lot better job than static typing. Static typing is known to be terrible at eliminating bugs from code. The complain here is not that static typing isn't better than nothing but that static typing is such a low tier solution, that if you were doing anything proper you wouldn't be touching it.
- Timon3 3y ago
  > Static typing is a very bad software development practice. There are a lot of other software development practices that are superior to it. Can you give some examples for these supposedly superior techniques? > "help you in refactoring" It's a terrible way to refactor your code. Could you explain why you think so? Say I'm changing the name of an attribute. Why is using static typing to find the places I have to change terrible? > "There is no way around verifying your assumptions about types" Yes, there are. There are many many ways to do this that do a lot better job than static typing. Static typing is known to be terrible at eliminating bugs from code. I didn't say what you think I said, since I didn't touch on static typing in this. Want to try responding to my actual argument?