4 ms·
Why needs this to be discussed again and again? It is such an obvious thing. Use a statically typed language and you get a proof that your program does not cont
by danbruc 13y ago
Why needs this to be discussed again and again? It is such an obvious thing. Use a statically typed language and you get a proof that your program does not contain bugs of a certain class for free. Use a dynamically typed language and you lose this proof or you have to do it on your own. Does this proof come with price tag attached? Yes, but a very small one - sometimes type inference fails and you are forced to manually specify the type. I don't see why this is worth any discussion.
- adamlett 13y agoMy theory: Many proponents of various dynamic languages simply cannot find a statically typed language that is appealing to them. You say the price tag of statically typed languages is small, and while that may be true in theory, in practice it is not if it means that a language is more verbose (Java, C#), properitary (C#), complex/obscure (Scala, Haskell) and/or immature (Scala/Go).