4 ms·
But isn't that like saying a healthy person can run 10x faster than someone with a limp? For context, my background has been predominantly in a dynamic languag
by ionforce 11y ago
But isn't that like saying a healthy person can run 10x faster than someone with a limp?
For context, my background has been predominantly in a dynamic language, but now I've drank all the typed kool-aid, so I'm sold, as it seems you are as well.
So we're essentially saying typed is 10x better than dynamic, but was dynamic ever really a good place to start with?
- cies 11y agoI'd say dynamic has its place. Especially Ruby since it can serve as a stepping stone for the imperative-minded into functional. > typed is 10x better than dynamic 10x what? Rails' community is many-x larger then Yesod's, in that case dynamic wins. :)
- chipsy 11y agoDynamic has a nice exploratory quality. It pushes off the moment of reckoning, but sometimes you need that if you're sketching an idea in code. It was good for me when I first learned, and I think that's still true now. For "in the large" systems it's basically required that stuff gets a bit more gooshy and dynamic-y and interact in an indirect, protocol-driven fashion. But when you actually have a specific piece of engineering in mind, it's nowhere near as helpful - it tends to solve things that could probably be solved more soundly with compile-time constructs. But there's a process of building up your understanding to where you can actually have confidence in what you're building, which isn't reached so easily. Having the compiler fail your code before it can run is very "magical" in that sense.