5 ms·
> 1. A common argument is that static-typed languages slow development. I'm not touching that land-mine. If you claim type-checking is free, the counter-argume
by Goladus 14y ago
> 1. A common argument is that static-typed languages slow development. I'm not touching that land-mine.
If you claim type-checking is free, the counter-argument is not that it "slows development." The counter is that type-checking is not free because it incurs measurable costs. You may sacrifice dynamic features, you may have to add declarations and type casts-- these are all costs whether they "slow development" or not.
(Simple solution: don't waste time trying to claim type-checking is free and just focus on the benefits.)
- AngryParsley 14y agoI would feel bad editing my comment now that you've replied, but my original intent was to say that type-checking is "free." At some point the quotes were lost. To get as close to the land-mine as I am willing: I like C. I like Python. I like Ruby. But most of all, I like using the right tool for the job.
- Peaker 14y agoI am not claiming static typing is free. But it is also untrue that you have to "add declarations and type casts". With type inference, you don't actually have to.
- Goladus 14y agoBut you have to use a language with type inference. That's still a cost. Maybe not a big one, but that was my point (and I'm definitely nitpicking a bit, I realize that.)
- dllthomas 14y agoA constraint is only possibly a cost - if it forces behavior you wouldn't have chosen otherwise.
- Goladus 14y agoTrue, but free usually means freedom from both cost and restraint, so the point doesn't change much. I should have said "constraint" rather than "cost". Though the original commenter did follow-up, clarifying that the common interpretation of "free" doesn't closely match the point he'd intended to make
- dllthomas 14y agoFair.