[sbinthree]

I am learning this lesson the hard way with dynamically typed languages on the server. If the documentation and database have to be statically typed, you should really use types in the code. So dynamically typed languages on the server is impossible (?).

[cphoover]

No offense but BS. What you have claimed is totally unsubstantiated, and not aligned with my experience working on highly-trafficked eCommerce applications.

If you know what your doing you can write elegant, performance tuned, secure and maintainable code in a dynamic language. I've also seen poorly written code written in statically typed languages.

It really comes to who is writing the code, what kind of standards they abide to, and their architectural prowess.

[eropple]

> If you know what your doing you can write elegant, performance tuned, secure and maintainable code in a dynamic language.

You can! You totally can. But, statistically speaking? You probably won't. Neither will I. And that's why the minimal level of guardrails I'll put up with in 2018 is TypeScript and I'd really rather have better.

[always_good]

You're rehashing the old dynamic- vs static-typed debate.

But what the upstream comment said was just wrong: that because documentation and database are statically-typed, then the application must be. It doesn't really make sense. See their use of "impossible".

For example, your database types or your application types aren't what your API documentation annotates. Your docs annotate your endpoint contracts, not the implementation detail behind them.

[eropple]

If you take "must" in the pocket-protectory overly-literal way, yeah, sure. But when you act generously and decent and take it to reference what is tenable and acceptable, things take a different turn. And it is in that light that I approach the topic and the speaker, because generosity and decency are pretty good things.