[jimbokun]

If your prejudice prevents you from having a conversation with Matz or Jose Valim or Van Rossom or the creators of Julia about software development, you may want to reconsider your prejudice as a hard and fast rule.

You can't honestly believe no one who likes to develop in a dynamically typed language has nothing interesting to say about software development?

[mcronce]

I can't (or, more accurately, don't) believe that, but I can certainly believe they have nothing interesting to say about the topic of static vs dynamic typing.

[_a_a_a_]

I'm very much with you on static typing but you've closed your mind with a slam. Please don't.

[lovich]

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.

It is both useful and allowed to have a certain level of belief that won’t be crossed without heavy effort. The OP didn’t even say they were closed to the conversation completely, but that a random person with no pre built trust isn’t going to get the time of day from them to rehash the same settled argument.

[_a_a_a_]

"Matz or Jose Valim or Van Rossom or the creators of Julia"

from memory Matz -> ruby, Valim-> elixir, Van Rossum -> python, and 'the creators of Julia' -> julia

Not 'random persons' then

[lovich]

Yea, the OP was referencing randos from his perspective and the responder subbed in famous software developers. They weren’t arguing on the same point

[insanitybit]

If I have pre-existing respect for someone I will hear them about. But the bar for that conversation is high.

[betenoire]

I'm not sure what is worse, loving dynamic languages or having all these pre-existing conditions

[insanitybit]

Doesn't everyone have those? Like, I'm unlikely to really engage with someone about my health unless they're a doctor or otherwise have some area of expertise. Or if it's just a casual, friendly conversation, to kill some time.

[betenoire]

Everyone has biases. But you aren't describing a bias, you are describing a refusal to engage with people below you. Speak for yourself, I don't have that.

[sixstringtheory]

We’re all humans and life is very complicated with many facets. If we all looked hard enough I’m sure we could find a person you’d refuse to engage in a debate with over their “thing.”

But that wouldn’t be a wise use of time in my opinion. And that’s what they’re ultimately driving at: we all have limited time to expend, so do it in things that matter to you. I believe “matters to you” is a bias.

[insanitybit]

"Below you" is a bit of an exaggeration, I think. I said that I might think less of someone as a software engineer if they express an opinion that I think is particularly bad. Hardly egregious, in my opinion. I also might not - it frankly depends a lot on the situation.

[_dain_]

idk about the others but much of Guido's development energies the past few years have been spent building Python's gradual static typing system.

[wredue]

These people opinions are based on bad information.

Beliefs inform decisions and other beliefs

I disagree with them on a huge number of fundamental things in software. Most of their fundaments are claims with no evidence. Due to that, I simply do not care about what they have to say most of the time.

[scns]

Python got type hints bolted on. A type system for Elixir is being worked on. Dynamic typing was a prerequisite for Erlang to enable hot-code-reloading. Julia is can be typed for an extra speedup. Stripe built a type checker for Ruby called Sorbet.

[adgjlsfhk1]

Julia generates fast code without type annotations (except for your data types).

[sundarurfriend]

> (except for your data types)

This confused me for a moment, but I think you mean annotating the types of the fields in your `struct`s, right?

An addition to that: any non-constant global variables (if you must have those) should also be type annotated.

[yetanotherloser]

To be honest, I think dynamic typing must contain a mind trap. Very smart people fall in.