Give good reasons why dynamic typing is bad that aren't
1.autistic need to be close to the machine
2. A solved problem in at least one dynamic language
3. Self hatred
Give good reasons why dynamic typing is bad that aren't
Isaac Wilson
Other urls found in this thread:
docs.racket-lang.org
evanfarrer.blogspot.ie
twitter.com
Lincoln Kelly
Fuck dynamic programming
Use
C
Luis Hughes
Catch more error at build time.
Austin Foster
/thread
Now on the other hand, there are little reasons why dynamic typing is good.
Benjamin Reyes
>A solved problem in at least one dynamic language by adding static typing when it matters.
That is what it comes down to, OP.
Brayden Roberts
muh lisp
Jayden Clark
Well, also Julia and all viable JS painkillers. And Python. And probably more.
Zachary Roberts
Whoops, thought you responded to In any case, see
David Cooper
I actually can't think of any at the moment.
You can have lists of arbitrary objects in any modern statically typed language, if that's what you're talking about.
Ayden Lopez
lisp is the best language ever
Charles Torres
>needing to build your code before you run it
>not loading it right away and analyzing it in a background process while it runs
Julian Martin
Sure, but consider the following: docs.racket-lang.org
Bentley White
i dont associate myself with racket garbage. You're a fucking retard. Thats not lisp
Ryan Baker
Bolting static typing on top of a dynamically typed language isn't an argument for dynamic typing.
Jordan Davis
If you assume "static typing" to be at least as capable as Standard ML or Haskell, then dynamic typing isn't necessarily bad, it just leaves some bugs in your software. It depends on your requirements/market whether this is a big problem or not.
Oh and since discussions like this always attract Lisp fans, you can have statically typed Lisp too. I quite like Shen myself.
evanfarrer.blogspot.ie
Justin Collins
simpler polymorphism
Colton Murphy
Barely.
Brandon Baker
should i learn standard ml?
Benjamin Campbell
>turns out the lisp advocate is an autist
Every time. I really don't know why I bother.
Jonathan Sanders
what the fuck do you have against lisp
Cameron Allen
Test
Joseph Parker
Probably not.
Luis Wright
why
Christian Peterson
Why would you want to learn SML? If you really like learning new languages or are interested in theorem proving or whatever, it might be a worthwhile pursuit. Since you're asking an Indonesian cargo cult historiography forum about it, though, we can assume neither of those is true.
You are more likely interested in what side benefits learning SML could get you. Maybe you think it'll look good on your CV or make you a better programmer in the same way learning Haskell or Lisp does.
However, SML is suboptimal for these purposes, because we live in a world that contains OCaml: a similar language, with a similar type system, that looks much better on a CV and will make you a better programmer in the same way learning Haskell or Lisp would.
Caleb Perez
i'm too dumb for haskell and lisp.
Samuel Nguyen
>why dynamic typing is bad
Dynamic typing is just unbounded polymorphism. I want polymorphism. It's good. But I don't want it to be mandatory in all parts of my code. Sometimes I need my code to run faster. Sometimes I want the language to enforce my invariants so I don't have to express them as tests. If I have to write code without access to these abilities, my program will be more expensive to run and maintain.