[59nadir]

> HN does not allow to continue a thread below a certain threshold.

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?).

[sklogic]

> Click on the time (for example "2 minutes ago") to open the post and reply there.

Shit. Is it a new feature? I do not remember this working before.

> 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

I am not interested in diverting the discussion from the topic. The topic was that static typing is superior to dynamic typing - i.e., more powerful and more flexible.

How does it translate to a "net win"? I do not care, honestly. There are fare to many factors other than the language features.

[59nadir]

> I am not interested in diverting the discussion from the topic. The topic was that static typing is superior to dynamic typing - i.e., more powerful and more flexible.

> How does it translate to a "net win"? I do not care, honestly. There are fare to many factors other than the language features.

I'm glad we established that you don't care about the net win of this, so that we can agree that we're not at all talking about the same thing.

The net win is the entire point. I don't care how something is done if it's not a net win for me and my projects. It's irrelevant to say something is better in theory if there is absolutely no proof of it actually being better.

I can love macros, but would I go ahead and assert that a language with macros is absolutely better than a language without? No, they have a cost associated with them and their misuse makes things worse. Hence, they're not objectively superior to anything else. This goes for almost any feature, until you can prove a net win.

(Edit: The same goes for my point about C++ earlier. There are more things in C++ than there are in C, but most people would argue that C++ has too many things and that many of them actually make things worse. Hence, having more things in C++ could be considered a net loss.)

[sklogic]

> they have a cost associated with them and their misuse makes things worse

Omg. My assessment was correct, after all.

> Hence, they're not objectively superior to anything else

Of course they are.

[59nadir]

> Omg. My assessment was correct, after all.

If your assessment was that I prefer being pragmatic and that I believe most things have a cost, then yes. I think macros can be done right (in Scheme, etc.), but even then they have a potential cost.

> Of course they are.

And this is obviously where we definitely diverge. I think macros are great, but I acknowledge that you can't make that statement without big disclaimers. You don't seem to care about being pragmatic, so for you it's more clear cut.