6 ms·

Bravo. This is the best thing I've read anywhere about the general issue of types, both static and dynamic. It is even-handed, acknowledging the benefits and li

Bravo. This is the best thing I've read anywhere about the general issue of types, both static and dynamic. It is even-handed, acknowledging the benefits and limitations of both static and dynamic languages, and incredibly well-informed. I now have something to send to the next person that threatens to send me a copy of PFPL.

tome 12y ago
But unfortunately it doesn't say anything concrete about what the benefits and limitations of static and dynamic languages are.
- brandonbloom 12y ago
  s/But unfortunately/One of the best things about this article is that/
- yogthos 12y ago
  That's because we don't actually have any concrete evidence one way or the other. This is the biggest problem with the whole static/dynamic debate. Until there are studies that clearly demonstrate that projects written in statically typed languages have statistically less defects, are developed faster, or are easier to maintain, it's all anecdotal evidence. There are tons of large real world projects developed in both static and dynamic languages, there's very little indication that projects developed in dynamic languages have significantly more defects or that they're more difficult to maintain. In fact, some of the largest and most robust applications are written in Erlang. See the paper from Joe Armstrong as an example (https://www.sics.se/~joe/thesis/armstrong_thesis_2003.pdf https://www.sics.se/~joe/thesis/armstrong_thesis_2003.pdf).
  - mpweiher 12y ago
    > That's because we don't actually have any concrete evidence one way or the other. We do have some evidence that if there are differences in safety, they appear to be less than overwhelming, see http://blog.metaobject.com/2014/06/the-safyness-of-static-typing.html http://blog.metaobject.com/2014/06/the-safyness-of-static-ty... One can debate how viable the evidence is, but at least it is some evidence. However, there does appear to be some evidence that static typing helps with program comprehension/navigation, for example: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2568299 http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2568299 Again, not overwhelming, but some evidence.
    - yogthos 12y ago
      That's exactly my point, the best anybody managed to say is that there may be some slight difference. Even then it's difficult to draw any sweeping conclusions since there's a lot of variation between languages in each family as well.

tome 12y ago

But unfortunately it doesn't say anything concrete about what the benefits and limitations of static and dynamic languages are.

brandonbloom 12y ago
s/But unfortunately/One of the best things about this article is that/
yogthos 12y ago
That's because we don't actually have any concrete evidence one way or the other. This is the biggest problem with the whole static/dynamic debate. Until there are studies that clearly demonstrate that projects written in statically typed languages have statistically less defects, are developed faster, or are easier to maintain, it's all anecdotal evidence. There are tons of large real world projects developed in both static and dynamic languages, there's very little indication that projects developed in dynamic languages have significantly more defects or that they're more difficult to maintain. In fact, some of the largest and most robust applications are written in Erlang. See the paper from Joe Armstrong as an example (https://www.sics.se/~joe/thesis/armstrong_thesis_2003.pdf https://www.sics.se/~joe/thesis/armstrong_thesis_2003.pdf).
- mpweiher 12y ago
  > That's because we don't actually have any concrete evidence one way or the other. We do have some evidence that if there are differences in safety, they appear to be less than overwhelming, see http://blog.metaobject.com/2014/06/the-safyness-of-static-typing.html http://blog.metaobject.com/2014/06/the-safyness-of-static-ty... One can debate how viable the evidence is, but at least it is some evidence. However, there does appear to be some evidence that static typing helps with program comprehension/navigation, for example: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2568299 http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2568299 Again, not overwhelming, but some evidence.
  - yogthos 12y ago
    That's exactly my point, the best anybody managed to say is that there may be some slight difference. Even then it's difficult to draw any sweeping conclusions since there's a lot of variation between languages in each family as well.