Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by vchynarov 3744 days ago
I am hesitant to start the whole typed vs untyped debate here, but this is exactly what your comment is highlighting. Where does all this evidence come from? I have recently started using Scala and while initially the learning curve was quite high, I have been so happy to have such a comprehensive type system.
2 comments
brightsize 3744 days ago
I was wondering why no one has mentioned scala.js here. It would seem to have a good story to tell - strong typing and, according to the project site[1], good interop with JS. As a Scala developer with some front-end experience, exclusively with CoffeeScript (which I think is beautiful BTW, not a popular opinion in these parts), I wonder what are perceived to be the downsides, other than learning-curve and relative immaturity, of "client-side Scala"? I can imagine developers being adverse to working with a heavyweight toolset, but are there in fact interop (or other) problems?

[1] http://www.scala-js.org/

link
nickbauman 3744 days ago
This is a more recent one: http://games.greggman.com/game/dynamic-typing-static-typing/

There's actually very little real research that has been done that proves or disproves whether static or dynamic typing is better. Anecdotally, I've spent most of my career using statically typed languages. One day I looked up and saw that I had spent most of the day trying to satisfy a compiler rather than having a compiler satisfy me. I've never really looked back. I program almost entirely in dynamic languages these days. Otherwise, I use Java, Swift and Go only when I'm forced to.

link