About: " The question, then, is whether the flexibility of dynamic types lets you develop, test, unit test, and system test code so much faster than you would in a language with strong static types that you are able to prevent all runtime type errors anyway."
Yes! In the past years, I coded in typed languages (Java, C#), and in dynamic language (JavaScript). And dynamic language (using TDD) is faster and more solid, in my experience. The key part is TDD: it is the new compiler. It catch the errors, but not the type errors, but the behavior errors. And to me, this feature is more important. I only would switch to typed language for efficiency reasons, or some specialized domain. On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Michael Swierczek <mike.swierc...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > 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 > > We're arguing in circles. I think the fundamental question is between > two issues. On the potential drawback of strong static types, you > have trying to model all of the complex interlocking concepts in a > static type system and possibly dealing with long compile times. On > the potential drawback of dynamic typing, you have the risk of a > runtime type error. The question, then, is whether the flexibility of > dynamic types lets you develop, test, unit test, and system test code > so much faster than you would in a language with strong static types > that you are able to prevent all runtime type errors anyway. > > The difficulty in deciding the question is that the benefits and > drawbacks of either approach don't really manifest until your project > is huge. It's relatively straightforward to get your dynamic typing > right in a 500 line program, and it's relatively straightforward to > not have any issues modeling your logic and data with static types in > a 500 line program, and the speed difference in development between > the two isn't significant. Once you get to hundreds of thousands of > lines of code, things get interesting - and it also gets much harder > to compare between the two. > > If you look at Youtube, Reddit, Twitter, Github, Tumblr, and Facebook, > they were written in languages with dynamic types. A lot of them > switched partly or totally to languages with static types for > performance reasons once they got big enough. But I really think they > stand as testimonial to the fact that dynamic types allow for faster > development than static types. If you're guiding a rocket or > controlling medical equipment, stay static. But for other use cases, > that's a pretty compelling case. > > -Mike > > -- > -- > 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. > -- -- 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.
