3 ms·
I don't think reasoning about types is a matter of intelligence. I happen to share your experience. It is more of a cognitive burden, exacerbated by less dilige
by ionforce 13y ago
I don't think reasoning about types is a matter of intelligence. I happen to share your experience. It is more of a cognitive burden, exacerbated by less diligent coworkers. No amount of "convention within dynamism" can compete with first class compile time type safety.
If I were to babysit a codebase by myself, maybe I would not feel this way. But with regards to professional team development on a large code base, the ship has sailed on dynamic languages.
- pjmlp 13y agoI fully agree. Dynamic languages don't scale on the typical enterprise Fortune 500 with three development sites and 50+ developers, as an example of the typical project sizes I work on. The main reasons tend to be: - Lack of unit testing, yes even in 2013 most enterprise managers would rather that time is spent on "real" coding - Massive code size, hard to navigate with just grep/find - Skill set varies too much across teams, specially if seen as cogs