31–40 of 44 posts
If you can, choose a statically typed language over a dynamically typed one. Reason: more errors are caught earlier during development. The rest of the article is (in my opinion) really just pro-scala talk.
As an engineer, I have to say I don't like what is going on here, what's the point in tossing academics, mathematicians and engineers aside? Many software fields, such as artificial intelligence or machine learning, benefit from the use of Matlab or R language. And of course, these are for Math stuff - I usually come to HN to read less obvious things.
Using R to build an accounting system wouldn't be that silly if there are heavy statistics to tackle. You can do mixed Java/R, R can be used in its domain. And BTW, it'd be much simpler to use Java for an accounting system than using Scala.
> This is academic/engineering/mathematics stuff. For equations, matrices, and such. You don't build accounting systems with these things. (Of course someone must have already done it!) As an engineer, I have to say I don't like what is going on here, what's the point in tossing academics, mathematicians and engineers aside? Many software fields, such as artificial intelligence or machine learning, benefit from the u…
"The neutrality of this article is discussed", as they say in Wikipedia. This is more of a rant than a thought, and much substance is left out where it would be important to provide. It's obvious for which language the author is rooting, while largely dismissing the rest. Not recommended.
Well, hosted at scala-academy.com ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stopped reading after "strong typing is better than weak typing". Well, it is not. Only in situations where other effects outweigh the fact that compile-time errors are much less bad than run-time errors.
No. That's simplifying the problem. Please read the link I posted about this subject, you'll be surprised on how deep this goes.
I respect that you have an opinion, but your reasoning is disingenuous at best and idiotic at worst.
Stopped reading after "strong typing is better than weak typing". Well, it is not. He/she rules out perfectly valid programming languages because of this personal opinion nowhere near a fact ( http://stackoverflow.com/questions/125367/dynamic-type-langu... ). In fact, it directly contradicts his/her second point. I understand the author wants to drift it towards Scala, but make an effort and choose the right argument…
Well, I also stopped reading there. I was weary when I saw the headline but clicked it to see if I could learn something new. The article seems written for newbie programmers (HTML/CSS in a programming language list? seriously? And who is, nowadays,seriously considering fortran for a new project?) and have them believe a series of opinions. Like the cartoon at the beginning, it seems like the author is just another l…
I like Scala, but the features I like in it, eg pattern matching or tail recursion, these things don't even exist in this article.
So I'm not sure it's advertisement, it feels more like it's an anti-ad, actually. If the argument for me to use a language is that it is statically typed, man, that language must not be good at all! Static or dynamic typing is part of language philosophy, it makes sense to have dynamic typing in Python, as it makes sense not having it in Java. Python philosophy is pretty coherent, productive and fun, and dynamic typing is a part of that. It just doesn't feel like a reasonable argument.
If you can, choose a statically typed language over a dynamically typed one. Reason: more errors are caught earlier during development. The rest of the article is (in my opinion) really just pro-scala talk.
That's oversimplifying. There are much more things to take into account than just that. If it was that simple, there would be no dynamic/weak typed language, right?
And I agree, it is not that simple, but only if you take other factors into account.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's oversimplifying. There are much more things to take into account than just that. If it was that simple, there would be no dynamic/weak typed language, right?
Its a fact: Using a dynamically typed language you have to write more code (tests etc.) to achieve the situation where you catch the same kind of bugs that a statically typed language would inform you during analysis. Strong and weak typing is a different thing. And I agree, it is not that simple, but only if you take other factors into account.