I don't think we disagree. The guesses I gave in my post only concerned
people like those who frustrated zcaudate, and who, from what was said,
seemed to feel that anything other than strict static typing was wrong in
all contexts. Maybe I'm reading too much into zcaudate's post, though.
(Also, so no one will misunderstand, when I said "'real world' doesn't mean
business", I of course meant not *just* business. A lot of my programming
experience was in the business world, actually.)
On Monday, December 23, 2013 2:57:43 PM UTC-6, Mark Hamstra wrote:
>
> 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.
