4 ms·
> I think I'd still consider using a compiled language, because the type-safety and compile-time guarantees of a statically typed language would go a long way
by apgwoz 17y ago
> I think I'd still consider using a compiled language, because the type-safety and compile-time guarantees of a statically typed language would go a long way toward eliminating a huge class of silly bugs that we deal with on a daily basis.
Not all compiled languages are statically typed.
> That's developer time in the bank.
And the time spent in the edit, compile, test, run, cycle? I'd think there's more developer time in the bank if I can edit, test, run.
- timr 17y agoNo, not all compiled languages are statically typed. I wouldn't use those languages. The time spent compiling is a red herring. I know that I've spent dozens of hours chasing down weird runtime bugs in Ruby that a C++ compiler would have caught for me during static analysis. That time more than makes up for the 15 minutes a day I might spend waiting on a compiler (I waste more than 15 minutes a day on coffee breaks!)