Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Jan 2013 23:15 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
General Development "Programming languages are living phenomena: They're born, the lucky ones that don't die in infancy live sometimes long, fruitful lives, and then inevitably enter a period of decline. Unlike real life, the decline can last many, many years as the presence of large legacy codebases means practiced hands must tend the code for decades. The more popular the language once was, the longer this period of decline will be."
Thread beginning with comment 548966
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by RareBreed
by satsujinka on Wed 16th Jan 2013 06:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by RareBreed"
satsujinka
Member since:
2010-03-11

If you'd like to be helpful, please point me to someone who prefers weak typing to strong typing. Then put that in context of everyone who prefers the reverse.

Please note that this is not a comment on the preference for dynamic or not. A dynamic language can still be weakly or strongly typed underneath (Python for instance is a strongly typed dynamic language.)

"We" in this case is in reference to the general populace of programmers.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by RareBreed
by ndrw on Thu 17th Jan 2013 00:10 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by RareBreed"
ndrw Member since:
2009-06-30

There are many programmers out there who prefer weak typing, so "general populace of programmers" is, well, generalization.

I'm somewhere in between. Sometimes I like strong typing (large models with a simple structure), sometimes not (complex or dynamic models). A quick exercise: how (and why) would you classify a small hungry, short-haired, black cat?

Also, while dynamic languages may or may not be strongly typed (semantically), they are all have to be weakly typed during compilation - the only time strong typing actually matters.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by RareBreed
by satsujinka on Thu 17th Jan 2013 01:04 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by RareBreed"
satsujinka Member since:
2010-03-11

Of course it is a generalization, however, it's a perfectly valid one. There are very concrete reasons to prefer strong typing to weak typing in nearly all cases.

If anything, complex models dictate strong typing. If simply to give you appropriate guarantees and sign posts for navigating the model. It's simple models in which adhering to rules isn't so important. For example, your cat is a simple model having just 4 properties to vary on (plus animal type, if we're dealing with other animals.)

A strongly typed language is a strongly typed language, no matter when the enforcement occurs. Static types merely help catch violations sooner, but you're still not allowed to violate the system if we check later.

Reply Parent Score: 2