>
> Dynamical languages are above all oriented toward practical programming
> needs *in certain contexts*--in other contexts, static typing is more
> practical.
>
Agreed -- which is why I find your speculation about "lightening up" with
"more experience ... meeting the demands of practical coding" to be
unsound. For those of us whose "practical programming" context includes a
high cost associated with most any runtime bug, greater embrace of static
typing, not "lightening up", comes with more practical experience. I can
be happy using a dynamically typed language when the price to be paid for
getting it wrong isn't as high; but all of my experience goes against
"lightening up" in the demanding programming context where I work every day.
On Monday, December 23, 2013 10:04:52 AM UTC-8, Mars0i wrote:
>
> I came to this thread late, and have only skimmed some of the answers, but
> I think that the following, somewhat oblique, opinion hasn't yet been
> expressed about the, I don't know, maybe ... harassment by "type weenies"
> that zcaudate feels. Apologies in advance if I've missed a similar point.
>
> First, I'll note that I agree with many of the comments so far. To
> everything there's a season. That goes for type systems.
>
> In what I say next, I'm not trying to offend anyone. I'm expressing
> half-baked opinions about what I feel are general tendencies. I am certain
> that there are exceptions to *every* generalization I make.
>
> My personal opinion:
>
> Many of us who like programming like it partly because we like order,
> systematicity, and elegance, at least in our thinking. We like things to
> make sense. Some people have a greater need for this than others, at least
> at certain stages of their life. So things that seem more clean and neat
> are attractive. Full-fledged static typing has this character. It's
> appealing because it's orderly in a very, well, strict sense. I think it's
> probably easier to be religious about static typing and provable
> correctness as a universal goal if you don't have to deal with a lot of
> pragmatic concerns. So I suspect that many type zealots are students or
> were recently, and that they'll end up lightening up in several years,
> after they've got more experience with meeting the demands of practical
> coding. (That's not to imply they'll necessarily give up affection for
> static typing, but it's hard to be a zealot after you've freely chosen,
> many times, to compromise on formerly rigid principles.) Dynamical
> languages are above all oriented toward practical programming needs *in
> certain contexts*--in other contexts, static typing is more practical.
> Maybe some of the hard core static type advocates will see the potential
> benefits dynamic typing when they get more experience. But you can't
> *prove*, mathematically, that dynamical typing is better sometimes. Its
> advantage comes out in actual *practice* in real-world situations.
> ("Real world" doesn't mean business. I'm an academic coding solely for
> research purposes (and fun!).)
>
> My 2c.
>
>
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
