3 ms·

> Remember when people would argue about how types weren't worth the effort? > if nothing else for how it's been able to popularize types. This is such an odd

by bbg2401 3mo ago

> Remember when people would argue about how types weren't worth the effort? > if nothing else for how it's been able to popularize types. This is such an odd, javascript dev take.

adamddev1 3mo ago
I'm a Haskell and FP nerd as well. I just meant the argument and the popularity inside the JS/TS world, which is fairly significant. I think the world is a better place because of the widespread adoption of TS over JS.
wk_end 3mo ago
It's maybe a bit of a startup-world, HN-blinkered assessment...but that's where we're talking, isn't it? Even before JS became the language for everything, there was a good chunk of time - maybe between 2005 and 2015? - when Python and Ruby were dominant in this environment, and this dismissive attitude towards static typechecking was similarly dominant. Of course in the enterprise space everyone was using Java, and in the systems space or game dev space everyone was using C++. But those worlds get a lot less airtime here. Plus everyone on HN is a good little pg disciple, and Lisp is dynamically typed. If the One True Language doesn't need static typechecking (though SBCL offers some very helpful heuristics) surely it's not worth it. Right? Right?
- BoingBoomTschak 3mo ago
  > Lisp is dynamically typed "Lisp" isn't a single language. Arguably the language people speak about when they say Lisp without qualifier, ANSI CL, allows conforming implementations (e.g. SBCL) to offer gradual typing, not just heuristics.
- dismalaf 3mo ago
  > Lisp is dynamically typed. Ish. SBCL aggressively infers types wherever possible. It can do dynamic typing with tags of course. You can also write it with 100% static types. Dynamic typing isn't a defining feature of Lisp style languages (even GC isn't necessary). Some historic Lisps and modern ones are 100% statically typed.
  - trealira 3mo ago
    > even GC isn't necessary Um, isn't it? Don't all Lisp variants have it? IIRC McCarthy's LISP just ran out of memory until the GC was written.
    - dismalaf 3mo ago
      > Um, isn't it? No. There's been GC-less Lisp's over the years, here's a good paper on one: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/142137.142162 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/142137.142162 There was also pre-Scheme, GOAL, nowadays there's Carp and Dale. Zeta Lisp (and now SBCL) had/have arenas and you can manually allocate, etc... > McCarthy's LISP McCarthy also envisioned it having M-expressions.

by bbg2401 3mo ago

> Remember when people would argue about how types weren't worth the effort? > if nothing else for how it's been able to popularize types. This is such an odd, javascript dev take.

adamddev1 3mo ago

I'm a Haskell and FP nerd as well. I just meant the argument and the popularity inside the JS/TS world, which is fairly significant. I think the world is a better place because of the widespread adoption of TS over JS.

wk_end 3mo ago

It's maybe a bit of a startup-world, HN-blinkered assessment...but that's where we're talking, isn't it? Even before JS became the language for everything, there was a good chunk of time - maybe between 2005 and 2015? - when Python and Ruby were dominant in this environment, and this dismissive attitude towards static typechecking was similarly dominant. Of course in the enterprise space everyone was using Java, and in the systems space or game dev space everyone was using C++. But those worlds get a lot less airtime here. Plus everyone on HN is a good little pg disciple, and Lisp is dynamically typed. If the One True Language doesn't need static typechecking (though SBCL offers some very helpful heuristics) surely it's not worth it. Right? Right?

BoingBoomTschak 3mo ago
> Lisp is dynamically typed "Lisp" isn't a single language. Arguably the language people speak about when they say Lisp without qualifier, ANSI CL, allows conforming implementations (e.g. SBCL) to offer gradual typing, not just heuristics.
dismalaf 3mo ago
> Lisp is dynamically typed. Ish. SBCL aggressively infers types wherever possible. It can do dynamic typing with tags of course. You can also write it with 100% static types. Dynamic typing isn't a defining feature of Lisp style languages (even GC isn't necessary). Some historic Lisps and modern ones are 100% statically typed.
- trealira 3mo ago
  > even GC isn't necessary Um, isn't it? Don't all Lisp variants have it? IIRC McCarthy's LISP just ran out of memory until the GC was written.
  - dismalaf 3mo ago
    > Um, isn't it? No. There's been GC-less Lisp's over the years, here's a good paper on one: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/142137.142162 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/142137.142162 There was also pre-Scheme, GOAL, nowadays there's Carp and Dale. Zeta Lisp (and now SBCL) had/have arenas and you can manually allocate, etc... > McCarthy's LISP McCarthy also envisioned it having M-expressions.