5 ms·

Static typing exists on a gradient. A ounce of static typing is useful to help with the refactoring, as you suggest, but the tradeoffs seem to quickly take over

Static typing exists on a gradient. A ounce of static typing is useful to help with the refactoring, as you suggest, but the tradeoffs seem to quickly take over once you go beyond typing basics. Not even the static typing die hards are willing to write line of business applications under complete type system.

bad_user 2y ago
It's a spectrum, of course. I, for one, prefer more static typing, rather than less. I prefer Scala, OCaml, F#, or Rust. And I've seen some difficult refactorings accomplished in Scala due to its expressive type system, although I can understand why it can be a turnoff. The downside of having more static typing is a bigger learning curve, so you end up sacrificing horizontal scaling of software development (hiring juniors fast) over vertical scaling (doing more with fewer, more senior people). Another downside is many times a slower compiler, which changes how you work. Once the code compiles, it may be correct, but then again, you end up doing less interactive development, so you work more in the abstract, instead of interactively playing with the code. I.e., Python's `pdb.set_trace()` is rarely available in static languages. I've always found this difference between dynamic and static languages quite interesting.
- randomdata 2y ago
  > I, for one, prefer more static typing, rather than less. I prefer Scala, OCaml, F#, or Rust. Why, then, don't you prefer languages with more static typing? Scala, Ocaml, F#, and Rust are middle of the road at best. It seems you're echoing that the pragmatic choice for a business application is to stick to typing basics (within some margin of what is considered basic).
  - bad_user 2y ago
    I recognize there are diminishing returns, and also, while I don't want first-tier mainstream languages, at the very least I want second-tier mainstream languages :) Haskell, for example, is harder to pick, and I wouldn't pick Idris even if I founded my own company.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - bad_user 2y ago
        Indeed, and the same answer was in my first reply to you, read again my first sentence. And I was pointing out my preferences, thinking we may have an interesting discussion. It appears not. Cheers mate,
        randomdata 2y ago
        [flagged]

bad_user 2y ago

It's a spectrum, of course. I, for one, prefer more static typing, rather than less. I prefer Scala, OCaml, F#, or Rust. And I've seen some difficult refactorings accomplished in Scala due to its expressive type system, although I can understand why it can be a turnoff. The downside of having more static typing is a bigger learning curve, so you end up sacrificing horizontal scaling of software development (hiring juniors fast) over vertical scaling (doing more with fewer, more senior people). Another downside is many times a slower compiler, which changes how you work. Once the code compiles, it may be correct, but then again, you end up doing less interactive development, so you work more in the abstract, instead of interactively playing with the code. I.e., Python's `pdb.set_trace()` is rarely available in static languages. I've always found this difference between dynamic and static languages quite interesting.

randomdata 2y ago
> I, for one, prefer more static typing, rather than less. I prefer Scala, OCaml, F#, or Rust. Why, then, don't you prefer languages with more static typing? Scala, Ocaml, F#, and Rust are middle of the road at best. It seems you're echoing that the pragmatic choice for a business application is to stick to typing basics (within some margin of what is considered basic).
- bad_user 2y ago
  I recognize there are diminishing returns, and also, while I don't want first-tier mainstream languages, at the very least I want second-tier mainstream languages :) Haskell, for example, is harder to pick, and I wouldn't pick Idris even if I founded my own company.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - bad_user 2y ago
      Indeed, and the same answer was in my first reply to you, read again my first sentence. And I was pointing out my preferences, thinking we may have an interesting discussion. It appears not. Cheers mate,
      - randomdata 2y ago
        [flagged]