3 ms·

Dynamically typed languages are automobiles and statically typed are bicyles?? Not exactly a neutral comparison and hypocracy in light of his complaints against

by lsd5you 17y ago

Dynamically typed languages are automobiles and statically typed are bicyles?? Not exactly a neutral comparison and hypocracy in light of his complaints against the strong vs. weak labels. Isn't it fair to say statically typed languages are still faster but are generally heavier and less agile. So surely the inverse is a much better analogy. Or is it that dynamic are more modern? In which case may I propose: statically typed languages are automobiles and dynamically typed languages are segways! (I kid).

mgreenbe 17y ago
Dynamically typed languages are automobiles and statically typed are bicyles?? Not exactly a neutral comparison and hypocracy in light of his complaints against the strong vs. weak labels. Good thing he didn't make it. Please read the article next time. Here's the relevant quote: [Obsessively tracking type information in dynamic languages] prevents a programmer from realizing the benefits of dynamic typing. It's like buying a new car, but refusing to drive any faster than a bicycle. The car is horrible; you can't get up the mountain trails, and it requires gasoline on top of everything else. Indeed, a car is a pretty lousy excuse for a bicycle! Similarly, dynamically typed languages are pretty lousy excuses for statically typed languages. The point the author is making is that some programmers may have been frustrated by dynamic languages because they didn't allow their programs to fail, i.e., with runtime type errors. I disagree with the author's point---I've never heard of anyone having that problem---but you've woefully misunderstood what the author says.
- lsd5you 17y ago
  I don't want to be argumentative - its only a light hearted comment - but i did of course read the article. I just interpreted something differently to yourself. I read it again, and the analogy is still there. Car is to dynamic typing as bicycle is to ... anyway ... you can play down its significance or ambiguity, but i'd need convincing that its not there at all.
  - mgreenbe 17y ago
    Fair enough. I would play down the significance where you played it up. Considering the equanimitous tone of the whole article, it seems unfair---or, at least, ungenerous---to take him to task for a colorful, one-off analogy.
Confusion 17y ago
Dynamically typed languages are automobiles and statically typed are bicyles?? Not only is that particular comparison hardly relevant, he's not even comparing dynamically and statically typed languages there. It's beyond me how that can be the thing you get out of this article.
- lsd5you 17y ago
  It was just a light-hearted comment, that no one else had made, not a summary of all my thoughts. How can you know that is the only thing i got from this article? Relevance, well its subjective, but i agree its not the main thrust of the article which had some reasonable points. He can choose its own style, its not wikipedia afterall!!

by lsd5you 17y ago

Dynamically typed languages are automobiles and statically typed are bicyles?? Not exactly a neutral comparison and hypocracy in light of his complaints against the strong vs. weak labels. Isn't it fair to say statically typed languages are still faster but are generally heavier and less agile. So surely the inverse is a much better analogy. Or is it that dynamic are more modern? In which case may I propose: statically typed languages are automobiles and dynamically typed languages are segways! (I kid).

mgreenbe 17y ago

Dynamically typed languages are automobiles and statically typed are bicyles?? Not exactly a neutral comparison and hypocracy in light of his complaints against the strong vs. weak labels. Good thing he didn't make it. Please read the article next time. Here's the relevant quote: [Obsessively tracking type information in dynamic languages] prevents a programmer from realizing the benefits of dynamic typing. It's like buying a new car, but refusing to drive any faster than a bicycle. The car is horrible; you can't get up the mountain trails, and it requires gasoline on top of everything else. Indeed, a car is a pretty lousy excuse for a bicycle! Similarly, dynamically typed languages are pretty lousy excuses for statically typed languages. The point the author is making is that some programmers may have been frustrated by dynamic languages because they didn't allow their programs to fail, i.e., with runtime type errors. I disagree with the author's point---I've never heard of anyone having that problem---but you've woefully misunderstood what the author says.

lsd5you 17y ago
I don't want to be argumentative - its only a light hearted comment - but i did of course read the article. I just interpreted something differently to yourself. I read it again, and the analogy is still there. Car is to dynamic typing as bicycle is to ... anyway ... you can play down its significance or ambiguity, but i'd need convincing that its not there at all.
- mgreenbe 17y ago
  Fair enough. I would play down the significance where you played it up. Considering the equanimitous tone of the whole article, it seems unfair---or, at least, ungenerous---to take him to task for a colorful, one-off analogy.

Confusion 17y ago

Dynamically typed languages are automobiles and statically typed are bicyles?? Not only is that particular comparison hardly relevant, he's not even comparing dynamically and statically typed languages there. It's beyond me how that can be the thing you get out of this article.

lsd5you 17y ago
It was just a light-hearted comment, that no one else had made, not a summary of all my thoughts. How can you know that is the only thing i got from this article? Relevance, well its subjective, but i agree its not the main thrust of the article which had some reasonable points. He can choose its own style, its not wikipedia afterall!!