42 ms·
Looks like a slow news day. A dynamically typed language is obviously easier to begin coding in, especially with a trivial example. The problems that staticall
by hrjet 13y ago
Looks like a slow news day.
A dynamically typed language is obviously easier to begin coding in, especially with a trivial example. The problems that statically typed language solve are usually found in larger code bases and in performance critical applications.
- taude 13y agoThis is true. But there are a lot of devs interested in combining the ease and speed of dynamic language syntax with the robust compilation of a static language... This will be a popular topic for awhile, I believe, because the JVM isn't going anywhere in the next decade (gut feeling).
- brandonbloom 13y agoThere is an orthogonal Clojure/Scala axis of interest for code bases of appreciating size: Mutability. Clojure programmers choose immutability by default. Scala, however, makes it just as easy to write "var" as it is to write "val", and just as easy to create a mutable collection as it is to create an immutable one. In my experience, this is far more important for larger code bases than static typing. Luckily, Scala offers immutability as a feature, which is more than can be said about Java/C++/Go/etc.
- wpietri 13y agoInteresting! I suppose var and val are as easy to type, but in Scala my mental default is always val; var is a smell to me. Isn't that the case for most people writing in Scala?