| > Have you noticed that you never speak in concrete terms, only pejorative adjectives? Saying you find something "laughable" and not "agreeable" is a feeling, not a refutation. Well, neither do you. I mean, if I have to spell it out for you (but the summary is that they take languages that aren't good examples of typed languages and make conclusions based on those). But more detailed breakdown: First slide. They make their own languages (first issue) snd have people solve small problems (second issue). Advantages of static typing really kick in for larger projects. Also, different type systems have different advantages so this comparison holds little informational value Second point, they are talking about code that has already been written, it doesn't say how much time was spent making the code correct. I really don't know what to conclude from their data though. > His point there is that all that static boilerplate you write to make a statically typed language happy, He's ignoring statically typed languages with type inference. They have been around since the 70's. > Some other study compared reliability across languages and found no significant differences. In other words neither static nor dynamic languages did better at reliability. How do you measure readability (notice that good research would indicate this). > Part of that was reflected in size of code. Dynamic languages need less code. They are comparing python vs C/C++/Java. Code terseness is orthogonal to type systems. Why do they not include say, Haskell? > Another point he made is that writing static types is often gross and unmaintainable whereas writing unit tests not. Hahahaha, what? Unit tests are more maintainable than types? And he gives a C++ example? |
If we're both just throwing around opinions this is no different than arguing tabs vs spaces. I've noticed that Typescript tends to be embraced by teams with lots of subpar enterprise Java developers with limited knowledge of Javascript. The same is also true of Angular, so it's a good fit here, but it's more for mitigating a lack of personal knowledge and organization standards than a general benefit.