Why static languages suffer from complexity
hirrolot.github.io
Why static languages suffer from complexity
1–10 of 306 posts
Re: Why static languages suffer from complexity
#2I'm unfamiliar with one of the language logos in the meme graph at the bottom: what's the red swooshy thing beside zig?
Re: Why static languages suffer from complexity
#3I'm unfamiliar with one of the language logos in the meme graph at the bottom: what's the red swooshy thing beside zig?
[deleted]
Re: Why static languages suffer from complexity
#4I'm unfamiliar with one of the language logos in the meme graph at the bottom: what's the red swooshy thing beside zig?
It's the Idris logo https://www.idris-lang.org/
Re: Why static languages suffer from complexity
#5Best.Programmer.Art.Ever
Re: Why static languages suffer from complexity
#6I didn't see the article touch on the "why" explicitly, but: zig really has the chance to square this circle for low level languages, since there is duck-typed type-inferenced-coercion in places where it makes sense. Completely correct about zig not necessarily being good for higher level stuff, but I think (dynamic) HLLs have been converging on dealing with this using static typechecking, with varying levels of success
Re: Why static languages suffer from complexity
#7I'm unfamiliar with one of the language logos in the meme graph at the bottom: what's the red swooshy thing beside zig?
[deleted]
Re: Why static languages suffer from complexity
#8I'm unfamiliar with one of the language logos in the meme graph at the bottom: what's the red swooshy thing beside zig?
[deleted]
Re: Why static languages suffer from complexity
#9> I cannot imagine a single language without the if operator, but only a few PLs accommodate full-fledged trait bounds, not to mention pattern matching. This is inconsistency . . .
How?
> Sometimes, software engineers find their languages too primitive to express their ideas even in dynamic code. But they do not give up . . .
Is this a failure of the language, or a failure of the engineer?
> If we make our languages fully dynamic, we will win biformity and inconsistency,[^] but will imminently lose the pleasure of compile-time validation and will end up debugging our programs at mid-nights . . . One possible solution I have seen is dependent types. With dependent types, we can parameterise types not only with other types but with values, too.
Types are a productive abstraction/model in programming languages. One of many. Each has its strengths and weaknesses; each is appropriate in some circumstances and not in others. Types are not the solution to all problems, any more than currying or OOP or whatever else is.
Re: Why static languages suffer from complexity
#10Ugh, I know I'm getting old when I don't understand the memes.