[mining]

> I'm guessing pretty junior with this kind of hubris

If you check their profile their site suggests that have ~15 years of experience.

[geocar]

That's just management experience.

I've been programming professionally for almost thirty years at this point.

That's admittedly long enough to get some peculiar ideas about programming, but there's a certain kind of person that thinks "statically typing" is a panacea for programming mistakes -- or even that there's a single solution for anything at all...

[hota_mazi]

I wouldn't trust anyone who thinks a solution is a panacea in the software field, but having type annotations demonstrably leads to not just more correct code but also code that can be understood better by its surrounding tooling, thereby enabling automatic refactorings, auto completion, smart browsing, optimizations, etc...

Static typing is not perfect but it's better in all respects than dynamic typing.

[geocar]

> I wouldn't trust anyone who thinks a solution is a panacea in the software field

... unless of course that solution is static typing.

> Static typing is not perfect but it's better in all respects than dynamic typing.

Except performance, of course: A dynamically-typed language is at the top of the STAC-M3 benchmarks for time series data processing.

Oh and defect count: Qmail has the lowest defect count of any source-available software in the last twenty years and it's written in C.

So I guess static typing is better unless you want correct code that runs quickly, which unfortunately is important to me.

[hota_mazi]

Can you point to these Stac-M3 results and maybe at least mention that language? I wasn't able to find it.

Static languages are universally recognized and demonstrated as faster than dynamically typed languages, even if you claim to have found one rare exception. This is not just an opinion, it's scientific and objective fact.

But please share with us that code that runs more quickly on a dynamic language than a static language for you, I am genuinely curious (and equally curious to find out if you just made this up).

[geocar]

> Can you point to these Stac-M3 results and maybe at least mention that language? I wasn't able to find it.

That makes sense, since your background isn't in high performance computing and you can't use google:

https://stacresearch.com/m3

The first item on the list is written in an interpreted language.

> This is not just an opinion, it's scientific and objective fact.

I've just demonstrated two counterexamples, so it's clearly not "scientific and objective fact". Indeed I've never met anyone who even thought Rust would outperform an experienced C programmer in programmer speed, program runtime, and low program size.

[ernst_klim]

>The first item on the list is written in an interpreted language.

Could I see the code? Because I'm pretty sure you can't write a fast numeric code without the knowledge of which type you will get on input. That's why fortran still rocks and we do nat have anything beyond fortran, c and c++ in the field of computation.

[hota_mazi]

That's the first link I found and it says nothing about a benchmark, what's being benchmarked, what languages were used and what the timings were.

Do you actually have anything to show to back up your claim? Anything at all?