461–470 of 632 posts
There are 3 main areas of interest in the discussion of benefits of static vs dynamic typing. - Quality (How many bugs) - Dev time (How fast to develop) - Maintainability (how easy to maintain and adapt for years, by others than the authors) The argument is often that there is no formal evidence for static typing one way or the other. Proponents of dynamic typing often argue that Quality is not demonstrably worse, wh…
4. Performance. There is software that can't be slow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are good points, but what about considering replaceability as an alternative to maintainability? I personally find dynamic languages allow for easy replacability, as there's less explicit references of types. However this is highly dependent on the system being somewhat modular I suppose.
This is basically why erlang's hot code reloading would be impossible as a general solution in a statically typed language
Erlang has dialyzer, which is great but it's based on optimistic typing. Hot-reloading aside, what would be the issue to creating such language? Maybe some issue with the process pids, which are quite dynamic?
There are 3 main areas of interest in the discussion of benefits of static vs dynamic typing. - Quality (How many bugs) - Dev time (How fast to develop) - Maintainability (how easy to maintain and adapt for years, by others than the authors) The argument is often that there is no formal evidence for static typing one way or the other. Proponents of dynamic typing often argue that Quality is not demonstrably worse, wh…
> For any code base that isn't a throwaway like a one-off script or similar, say 10 or 20 years maintenance I think one of our problems is that people have downgraded the importance of this. Much code nowadays (rightly or wrongly) is considered "disposable" - people think that the likelihood of any given piece of code they are writing as surviving more than a few years is negligible. It is a natural assumption when y…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is basically why erlang's hot code reloading would be impossible as a general solution in a statically typed language
You mean like this: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/hotswap Or this: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/dyre
If these things are so good why does no one use them? EVERYONE using Erlang is using the same hotswapping facility. This sort of dynamism is just fighting against the language in an environment like Haskell.
There are 3 main areas of interest in the discussion of benefits of static vs dynamic typing. - Quality (How many bugs) - Dev time (How fast to develop) - Maintainability (how easy to maintain and adapt for years, by others than the authors) The argument is often that there is no formal evidence for static typing one way or the other. Proponents of dynamic typing often argue that Quality is not demonstrably worse, wh…
There are 3 main areas of interest in the discussion of benefits of static vs dynamic typing. - Quality (How many bugs) - Dev time (How fast to develop) - Maintainability (how easy to maintain and adapt for years, by others than the authors) The argument is often that there is no formal evidence for static typing one way or the other. Proponents of dynamic typing often argue that Quality is not demonstrably worse, wh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Incredulous that people would downvote this.
I’m in the static camp myself, but there are dynamic language JIT runtimes that meet or exceed the performance of many static languages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean like this: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/hotswap Or this: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/dyre
15 commits 4 years ago, 121 commits 8 months ago If these things are so good why does no one use them? EVERYONE using Erlang is using the same hotswapping facility. This sort of dynamism is just fighting against the language in an environment like Haskell.