| > Please stop editing your posts 40 minutes after you initially post them in order to muddle the post history. HN does not allow to continue a thread below a certain threshold. > I think strong static type systems are useful in many ways and I've already told you repeatedly that I prefer them. This is not what I was talking about. Learn to read. My point is that you do not understand what does it mean that a bigger type system is providing new semantics for the language. You still fail to understand it, obviously, because this is a central point of my proof, which you failed to comprehend. > No one, in their next project, is going to build a dynamic type system in their static one, and then jerk off over that fact, when they could just start working on their ACTUAL project. Take a look at pretty much any code in static languages - it is almost always doing exactly this: various degrees of dynamic typing on top of static. Sometimes it is ugly, sometimes it is done the right way (LLVM is a good example of this approach). > Would you recommend to someone choosing between static and dynamic typing to start with a static one and then build their dynamic one on top of that? Even you somehow heard something about the gradual typing - which is exactly an example of this. > Your posts are full of bullshit, stupid assumptions and personal attacks. Omg. I'm only responding to your attacks. You're an uninformed and incompetent side in this argument, not me. |
Click on the time (for example "2 minutes ago") to open the post and reply there.
> My point is that you do not understand what does it mean that a bigger type system is providing new semantics for the language. You still fail to understand it, because this is a central point of my proof.
And my point is that you haven't answered why using a static type system over a dynamic one is a net win for people, which is the entire point. If there is no empiric evidence, don't argue as if there were. You yourself admitted that there is no evidence for it, so why are you arguing from a contradictory position?
> Even you somehow heard something about the gradual typing - which is exactly an example of this.
No, the practical flow of doing that is exactly the opposite: Starting from dynamic typing and imposing types when they are needed, likely after an exploratory phase. You seem to be arguing from a much more disconnected view point where you take the position that the platforms underlying representation is what matters, and I am arguing from a practical perspective (What should the programmer choose for his next project?).