Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Mar 2007 22:27 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 220247
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Only Two Choices?
by Mystilleef on Sun 11th Mar 2007 00:54
in reply to "RE[6]: Only Two Choices?"
RE[8]: Only Two Choices?
by msundman on Sun 11th Mar 2007 02:25
in reply to "RE[7]: Only Two Choices?"
> Your claim that dynamically typed languages is not good
> for "complex" projects/problems is bogus.
I can't speak for the guy making that claim (or for anyone else for that matter), but I personally think types add readability, a lot.
E.g., consider these two lines:
var perms = getPerms()
Map<User, Set<Permission>> perms = getPerms()
Which one conveys more information?
The added information brings with it the burden of having to write more (although good code completion support helps a lot). If typing is optional many people don't use it, so as long as I don't have complete control over all code I use I want the language to have static typing.





Member since:
2005-06-29
Static type checking is a minor general form of testing. By giving it up you're simply adding one more test onto your unit test requirements... I see no reason to rewrite this over and over when general algorithms have been _mathematically proven_.
You admit you're going to test the typing anyway so why not just have the compiler do it?
As I pointed out before, Python has a similar tool: PyChecker. You might try reading posts before you spout off self-righteously as if we told you your favorite language was bad, which I don't think anyone has.
Python is one of my favorite languages, I use it quite often. And not just on tiny problems.