Compiler checked typing is strictly superior to dynamic typing. Any criticism of it is either ignorance, only applicable to older languages or a temporarily missing feature from the current languages.
Using dynamic languages is understandable for a lot of language “external” reasons, just that I really feel like there’s no good argument for it.
I do believe that static typing is at least a local optimum, but I am still not entirely convinced. Rich Hickey is a very convincing presenter and I can’t help but think that he is on to something — with Clojure the chosen direction is contract-typing, which is basically a set of pre- and post-conditions for your functions that are evaluated at runtime. Sure, it has a cost and in the extremes they are pretty much the same as dependent types, but I think it is an interesting direction — why should my function be overly strict in accepting a “record” of only these fields?
Compiler checked typing is strictly superior to dynamic typing. Any criticism of it is either ignorance, only applicable to older languages or a temporarily missing feature from the current languages.
Using dynamic languages is understandable for a lot of language “external” reasons, just that I really feel like there’s no good argument for it.
It’s much easier to work with streams of untyped data in a weakly typed language.
true but i dont think is really a hot take?
I do believe that static typing is at least a local optimum, but I am still not entirely convinced. Rich Hickey is a very convincing presenter and I can’t help but think that he is on to something — with Clojure the chosen direction is contract-typing, which is basically a set of pre- and post-conditions for your functions that are evaluated at runtime. Sure, it has a cost and in the extremes they are pretty much the same as dependent types, but I think it is an interesting direction — why should my function be overly strict in accepting a “record” of only these fields?