5 ms·
I can't count on one hand the number of commits with >500 changes that did not introduce a single bug or regression due to the compiler catching a huge amount o
by maxcan 14y ago
I can't count on one hand the number of commits with >500 changes that did not introduce a single bug or regression due to the compiler catching a huge amount of little typoes and mistakes that would have slid by in a dynamic language.
Its like how most vehicle accidents involving impact speeds of over 300 MPH involve planes and not cars or boats. Its not that cars and boats are safer..
- pjmlp 14y agoThat is the biggest problem with dynamic languages, they don't scale. In the enterprise projects where I work, usually with around 200+ developers scattered around the globe, it is unthinkable to use dynamic languages in such environments. We already have issues with static languages in the CI system. I cannot think how it would look like doing the project in a dynamic language.
- grey-area 14y agoFair enough - I accept dynamic languages are not always suited to larger projects, particularly with a large number of developers involved all working on the same code. I suppose it is possible to impose structure in a dynamic language by having strict rules about interfaces and documentation, but at some point (which you have obviously experienced) it becomes much more attractive to have the compiler do it for you. For smaller projects however, with smaller teams, dynamic languages do have less overhead, which is perhaps why they are so popular for web apps.