Excerpts from Sven Van Caekenberghe's message of 2016-01-20 09:09:00 +0100: > What was also in the original article is the point that yes, refactoring is a > bit easier, more correct and more powerful in a static typed language, but > you need much more refactoring there because of all this extra coding to > maintain the type constraints (again for little gain).
which extra coding do you mean here? can you give an example? i once translated code from untyped common lisp to typed pike, and the result was almost identical. there was no extra code whatsoever. the only really difference was that variables had type declarations. looking at typescript for example, it has a feature where you can take existing javascript libraries and add type annotations in a separate file. how would adding that type information lead to extra code? that simply makes no sense. if you talk about extra code in java or c++, then that's because those languages are different to dynamic languages in many other ways, not just types. greetings, martin. -- eKita - the online platform for your entire academic life -- chief engineer eKita.co pike programmer pike.lysator.liu.se caudium.net societyserver.org secretary beijinglug.org mentor fossasia.org foresight developer foresightlinux.org realss.com unix sysadmin Martin Bähr working in china http://societyserver.org/mbaehr/
