Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The advantages of static typing, simply stated

pchiusano.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 127 posts

Re: The advantages of static typing, simply stated

#21

Post by tdb7893 »

jomamaxx wrote: post #9
susan_hall wrote: post #2

My disagreement starts with the beginning of this: "A large class of errors are caught, earlier in the development process, closer to the location where they are introduced." I would re-state this as: "A large class of errors are introduced, which otherwise would not exist." Consider dealing with JSON in Java. Every element, however deeply nested, needs to be cast, and miscasting leads to endless errors, elsewhere in…

I think the problem in your example is mostly related to the fact that Java syntax is just horrible for dealing with JSON - not really an issue of typing. If Java were conceived of today - I think it might look a little different with respect to this. I'd like to point out that there are many areas wherein fluid typing might help a little bit, especially on the UI. Have to make a class for 'every little thing' gets c…

Java is fine at decoding Json if you know what the fields are going to be. It's not like creating an object with the fields you want is very difficult and then libraries will deserialize it easily. It's also not hard to create a tool that will generate a POJO class from a string of Json. It doesn't really take time so the only problem is that it is yet another class on the classpath

Re: The advantages of static typing, simply stated

#22

Post by jondubois »

I started programming with PHP and JavaScript (both dynamically typed) then I started writing games with ActionScript 2 (dynamically typed) then I switched to ActionScript 3 (statically typed), then I got into Java (statically typed) and later C/C++ (statically typed) - So I spent a lot of time with both.

For the past few years I've been coding almost exclusively in dynamically typed languages - I did some Python (dynamically typed) but mostly a lot of JavaScript/Node.js (dynamically typed). I understand all the pros and cons, but for me personally, I am much more productive with dynamically typed languages than statically typed ones.

It was a long time ago, but I still remember clearly when I switched from AS2 to AS3 - I was writing games for Flash at the time; I did feel an improvement and I really liked the additional structure which types brought to my code. There was a certain satisfaction that came with defining fixed classes and interfaces and making use of polymorphism and various formal 'design patterns'. It gave me extra 'confidence' in my code.

In retrospect, after having spent years praising statically-typed languages, and then later switching back to dynamically typed languages, I think a lot of the benefits that I felt during my static typing phase came down to one simple fact:

"Statically typed languages force you think more before you do things" - This was really valuable early in my career when I had a tendency to rush things. However, now that I more fully appreciate how complex programming is (and how easy it is to break stuff), I am always very careful (regardless of the language).

Static typing for me has become a tedious process through which I no longer derive much value - Though it was really useful at a specific point in my career.

That said, I think there is some stuff (anything to do with low-level hardware/systems and optimizations) where statically typed languages cannot be avoided.

Also I wouldn't say that people who like statically typed languages are inexperienced - I know some very experienced engineers who are just addicted to that extra feeling of 'confidence' and structure which statically typed languages give you.

Re: The advantages of static typing, simply stated

#23

Post by jshen »

gaius wrote: post #13

Why are we even still having this debate in 2016? The question is not if strong types are better but how to migrate existing codebases to those languages. I'm an OCaml guy myself but Swift looks pretty nice...

We're still having this debate because there is very little empirical data on the subject.

Re: The advantages of static typing, simply stated

#24

Post by hacker_9 »

It's frustrating that this static vs dynamic 'battle' still goes on. The longer everyone thinks this is actually a problem, the longer we have to wait for innovations to happen. Look at the web in 2016, the technology is a complete disarray. Look at the game industry in 2016, where C++ is thrown around as the the cause and solution to all life's problems. A language created 33 years ago now with no intention of being used as it is today.

The advantage of static typing is obvious to me; the more my computer understands of my code, the less work I have to do. I can offload my memory and instead think about things that are more interesting, not be looking up Python obscurities on Stackoverflow.

But static typing is not perfect, and there is still more the computer could be doing if it had more understanding. That is where we should be focusing, that is where the real problem is.

Re: The advantages of static typing, simply stated

#25

Post by barrkel »

Newbie starts with C++, moves on to Haskell after a very brief dabbling in some dynamic languages, and comes out thinking expressive static type systems are great. No great surprise, no real insight.

The purpose of programming languages is to bridge the gap between ideas and execution. The purpose of a type system is to prove something about the code; astute readers will notice that this is an orthogonal concern. Static types may be helpful; they may impede progress. It mostly depends on the application.

Re: The advantages of static typing, simply stated

#27

Post by jomamaxx »

tdb7893 wrote: post #21
jomamaxx wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem in your example is mostly related to the fact that Java syntax is just horrible for dealing with JSON - not really an issue of typing. If Java were conceived of today - I think it might look a little different with respect to this. I'd like to point out that there are many areas wherein fluid typing might help a little bit, especially on the UI. Have to make a class for 'every little thing' gets c…

Java is fine at decoding Json if you know what the fields are going to be. It's not like creating an object with the fields you want is very difficult and then libraries will deserialize it easily. It's also not hard to create a tool that will generate a POJO class from a string of Json. It doesn't really take time so the only problem is that it is yet another class on the classpath

"Java is fine at decoding Json "

It does the job but it's not nearly as nice as javascript or python. It's about double the code in Java and it doesn't read nicely.

I think it depends on what you're doing.

Re: The advantages of static typing, simply stated

#28

Post by sidlls »

jack9 wrote: post #7
sidlls wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered the possibility instead that JSON is not an appropriate serialization protocol or storage mechanism for the problem to be solved? Or that it isn't being used effectively/correctly (that is, it isn't being parsed correctly, e.g. with a library or some other mechanism that makes checking underlying types less cumbersome)? I noted in a comment downstream from here that plenty of C and C++ JSON librar…

> your only option is to cast to Object In Java JSON is horrible for serialization because of Java behaviors (your best option is Object). That doesn't mean JSON is horrible for serialization, in general. Fields do have types (int, string, object, array) making it slightly better than arbitrary serialization.

I haven't used Java in a long time, so I don't what the library ecosystem for JSON is, but with both C and C++ there are plenty of parsers that make type casting and working with JSON data about as easy as in python. The difference is usually that the type of the underlying data one is interested in working with is explicit and, when the JSON data is malformed is caught earlier (at cast, as opposed to later, when trying to, e.g. add a string to an int in sane languages that break when that happens).

Re: The advantages of static typing, simply stated

#29

Post by sesm »

hacker_9 wrote: post #24

It's frustrating that this static vs dynamic 'battle' still goes on. The longer everyone thinks this is actually a problem, the longer we have to wait for innovations to happen. Look at the web in 2016, the technology is a complete disarray. Look at the game industry in 2016, where C++ is thrown around as the the cause and solution to all life's problems. A language created 33 years ago now with no intention of being…

With static typing the computer doesn't "understand" your code. It just automatically checks the correctness proof you've presented to it. And the correctness is limited only to certain properties of the program, that a given type system supports.

Re: The advantages of static typing, simply stated

#30

Post by sesm »

crdoconnor wrote: post #16
gaius wrote: post #13

Why are we even still having this debate in 2016? The question is not if strong types are better but how to migrate existing codebases to those languages. I'm an OCaml guy myself but Swift looks pretty nice...

Partly because people still get mixed up between strong typing (something without any clear definition) and static typing...

I'm not aware of any universally accepted definition of "strong typing"
Post reply on HN