3 ms·
More like its FKF (Fear of the Known and Familiar). Most (if not all) programmers have experience with static typing and most of those experiences were not plea
by jstuxx 11y ago
More like its FKF (Fear of the Known and Familiar). Most (if not all) programmers have experience with static typing and most of those experiences were not pleasant hence why a lot of people don't like static typing. People start to hate it even more when it gets shoved down their throats i.e. "You must absolutely must use static typing otherwise your software is unreliable and buggy".
Static typing requires discipline, it is no magic cure for bugs which will automatically make your programs correct, same way forcing everything to be in class in Java does not automatically make readable, modular and reusable code, its just restrictive and annoying.
The disciplines required for static typing to be effective can be employed in dynamic typing however merely having a static type system does not mean the discipline will be developed. In order for a static type system to not be restrictive (like Java's or C++'s) it has to be flexible i.e. it has allow types of varying degrees of vagueness. If I am an inexperienced programmer with no discipline nothing stops me from picking the vaguest type possible and making a complete mess. Type errors do not prevent all bugs, in-fact they prevent only a minimal subset of bugs, most bugs are related to logic errors involving an ill-thought out algorithm or data errors related to invalid data provided by the user which often can only be caught by dynamic type systems.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- dllthomas 11y agoThere are too many things wrong with this comment for me to address any subset of them coherently... I'll leave it at responding to the bit I do agree with, which is that many people have had poor experiences with poor checkers for poor type systems.
- sebastianconcpt 11y agoThat's a good observation