5 ms·
Agreed. Dynamic typing is fine once you get used to it, but the only thing I've found to solve the callback hell is a publish / subscribe architecture, which br
by joe_fishfish 13y ago
Agreed. Dynamic typing is fine once you get used to it, but the only thing I've found to solve the callback hell is a publish / subscribe architecture, which brings its own problems.
- eru 13y agoI've started with (bad) static typing in C, Pascal and friends, then got to use the dynamic Lisp and Python. But now I'm at (good) static typing again with Haskell (and OCaml). Good static typing saves you about half the units tests. And you don't even have to worry too much about that `half' being correct, because the type machinery in your compiler has been checked by thousands of people before. Whereas your tests are normally written from scratch. Types also make your testing life much easier. QuickCheck is about the gold standard in rules based testing, and QuickCheck in a type-inferred language is just so much less verbose than when you have to either manually add all type annotiations or have to go without types. (That's mostly because Haskell allows overloading by return type.)