3 ms·
That's the thing though, there are lots of papers that support both sides of the argument out there. For example, take this http://macbeth.cs.ucdavis.edu/lang_s
by yogthos 11y ago
That's the thing though, there are lots of papers that support both sides of the argument out there. For example, take this http://macbeth.cs.ucdavis.edu/lang_study.pdf http://macbeth.cs.ucdavis.edu/lang_study.pdf large scale study of GitHub projects. In the study, Clojure is right up there for correctness with hardcore statically typed languages like Haskell.
There's plenty of software written in both typing disciplines in the wild. Yet, nobody managed to conclusively demonstrate that software written in statically typed languages is produced faster and with less overall defects or that it has lower maintenance cost. The very fact that we're still having these debates says volumes in my opinion.
Majority of arguments regarding benefits of static typing appear to be rooted squarely in anecdotal evidence.
- erdeszt 11y agoI agree with this comment of yours but the first one has a few overstatements and that prompted my reply. Also if you feel that strong types slow you down I suggest you try some gradually typed language where you can start out without types, do the exploring and add the types when you know what you want. I've tried this in TypeScript and it was a fairly good experience.
- chimprich 11y agoIt wasn't my intention to overstate the benefits of dynamic typing, just to point out that static typing isn't just a free lunch. I think yogthos sums up the situation pretty well.
- yogthos 11y agoClojure also takes this approach with core.typed as well https://frenchy64.github.io/2015/06/19/gradual-typing.html https://frenchy64.github.io/2015/06/19/gradual-typing.html I personally haven't found a place where this is necessary yet, but who knows what might happen in the future. :)