By dotCore
via win-vector.com
Published: Feb 26 2012 / 17:47
A lot of people consider the static typing found in languages such as C, C++, ML, Java and Scala as needless hairshirtism. They consider the dynamic typing of languages like Lisp, Scheme, Perl, Ruby and Python as a critical advantage (ignoring other features of these languages and other efforts at generic programming such as the STL).
-
The css selector length myth
-
Drupalcon Portland Video Recap - Day 1
-
.NET Guidelines: Should I have one class per file?
-
Announcing StrongLoop Node, an enterprise-ready distro of Node.js. Private repos, message queues and more
-
Create An Animated CSS Box Menu
-
5 Tips for Mainframe Modernization: Transitioning to a GUI
Comments
devdanke replied ago:
Nice article. A voice from the silent majority of programmers.
There's a place for both static and dynamic typing. Both language types can learn from each other.
At the very least, static typing makes it easier for your IDE to make fewer yet better code-completion suggestions.
While I favor static typing, static languages tend to go overboard on ceremony and clutter the language. Developers who use dynamic languages see the excessive ceremony and rightly call bullsh*t on it.
Scala and upcoming Java versions are becoming simpler because they use type inferencing, which means you don't have to redundantly specify type all the time. I believe that the motivation behind using type inferencing came from dynamic languages.
Miloskov replied ago:
I agree with your comment but just I dont agree that Type inference comes from dynamic languages. Type inference it is an algorithm from lambda calculus and more from Functional paradigm so I will attribute more this to functional languages as Haskell or ML that are static typed.
I prefer a compiler help me to than do all the job by my self. Static languages Rules!.
netsql replied ago:
Voters For This Link (25)
Voters Against This Link (2)