7 ms·

This development/trend seems to show that the value of the "dynamicity" of scripting languages have perhaps been overrated. There seems to be a set of abstracti

by Dewie3 11y ago

This development/trend seems to show that the value of the "dynamicity" of scripting languages have perhaps been overrated. There seems to be a set of abstractions with reasonably/very good mechanical sympathy that are both easy to understand and use, and that doesn't constrain you that much with regards to factorability and coding iteration.

LanceH 11y ago
For me it seems to be hitting that niche of "one off" programs that have a nack for sticking around forever. Once I figure out something needs to become software and not be truly one off, then I find myself reaching for Go.
pekk 11y ago
If there was a time when dynamic typing was overrated, then it is certainly possible that this time is a time when static typing is overrated.
- frik 11y ago
  :) Another kind of typing system is a mixture of dynamic and static typing named: gradual typing (PHP/Hack, JS, ActionScript, etc.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradual_typing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradual_typing There is also the difference between strong and weak typing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_and_weak_typing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_and_weak_typing It's certainly possible that there was a time when virtual machine based language implementations where overrated.
- Dewie3 11y ago
  I didn't really mean dynamic typing (that's why I wrote "dynamicity" with question mark). To be clearer: the ability for things to change at runtime, i.e. for the programmer to do things like monkey patching. I guess dynamic typing is related to this, at least in the sense that you'll have to give up on some static typing in order to get more flexible dynamic behaviour. And yeah, I realize that Python et. al. is used for real apps, and certainly not just for scripting tasks.
- jerf 11y ago
  "If there was a time when dynamic typing was overrated, then it is certainly possible that this time is a time when static typing is overrated." I think that's actually a very important aspect of understanding where dynamic typing as a hugely popular thing came from. Today, I favor static typing. However, given a choice of Python or 1990s-C++, I'll take Python. It could be argued that the static typing world needed to be dethroned and be forced to improve itself in the face of the dynamic competition to become what it is today. On the other hand, pretending that "static typing" is the same today as it was 20 years ago is merely the complementary failure that people too bedazzled by static typing 20 years ago and dismissed the oncoming dynamic typing wave made.
throwaway1240 11y ago
The real value of dynamic languages can only be realized in dynamic, image-based, live programming environments like the kind you have with Lisp and Smalltalk. Whether "scripting" languages, as in languages used to write small, one-off programs, or programs to automate systems administration tasks or to glue other programs together, benefit from that type of power is debatable, but Ruby, Python, and Perl have never been particularly good representatives of the dynamic language paradigm as a whole, either conceptually or implementation-wise.
- frik 11y ago
  > like the kind you have with Lisp and Smalltalk ...and PHP and JavaScript
- Dewie3 11y ago
  There's a reason that I wrote 'scripting languages' instead of dynamic languages. Python, Ruby etc. seem to be more regarded as scripting languages than Lisp and Smalltalk.

by Dewie3 11y ago

LanceH 11y ago

For me it seems to be hitting that niche of "one off" programs that have a nack for sticking around forever. Once I figure out something needs to become software and not be truly one off, then I find myself reaching for Go.

pekk 11y ago

If there was a time when dynamic typing was overrated, then it is certainly possible that this time is a time when static typing is overrated.

frik 11y ago
:) Another kind of typing system is a mixture of dynamic and static typing named: gradual typing (PHP/Hack, JS, ActionScript, etc.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradual_typing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradual_typing There is also the difference between strong and weak typing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_and_weak_typing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_and_weak_typing It's certainly possible that there was a time when virtual machine based language implementations where overrated.
Dewie3 11y ago
I didn't really mean dynamic typing (that's why I wrote "dynamicity" with question mark). To be clearer: the ability for things to change at runtime, i.e. for the programmer to do things like monkey patching. I guess dynamic typing is related to this, at least in the sense that you'll have to give up on some static typing in order to get more flexible dynamic behaviour. And yeah, I realize that Python et. al. is used for real apps, and certainly not just for scripting tasks.
jerf 11y ago
"If there was a time when dynamic typing was overrated, then it is certainly possible that this time is a time when static typing is overrated." I think that's actually a very important aspect of understanding where dynamic typing as a hugely popular thing came from. Today, I favor static typing. However, given a choice of Python or 1990s-C++, I'll take Python. It could be argued that the static typing world needed to be dethroned and be forced to improve itself in the face of the dynamic competition to become what it is today. On the other hand, pretending that "static typing" is the same today as it was 20 years ago is merely the complementary failure that people too bedazzled by static typing 20 years ago and dismissed the oncoming dynamic typing wave made.

throwaway1240 11y ago

The real value of dynamic languages can only be realized in dynamic, image-based, live programming environments like the kind you have with Lisp and Smalltalk. Whether "scripting" languages, as in languages used to write small, one-off programs, or programs to automate systems administration tasks or to glue other programs together, benefit from that type of power is debatable, but Ruby, Python, and Perl have never been particularly good representatives of the dynamic language paradigm as a whole, either conceptually or implementation-wise.

frik 11y ago
> like the kind you have with Lisp and Smalltalk ...and PHP and JavaScript
Dewie3 11y ago
There's a reason that I wrote 'scripting languages' instead of dynamic languages. Python, Ruby etc. seem to be more regarded as scripting languages than Lisp and Smalltalk.