In my experience it depends on the language. I've spent most of my career programming in more dynamic languages (no professional APL or J -- mostly Python, Ruby, and Clojure), but am a recent convert to strongly-typed functional languages. Languages with relatively weak type systems like C and Java I agree that the type system doesn't help much. But in languages like Haskell, Scala, Rust, etc the type system can prevent entire classes of errors from even compiling. Rust is probably the easiest example: Rust doesn't use garbage collection, but instead embeds notions of memory ownership and lifetime in the type system. Many possible programmer errors in C such as use-after-free become impossible because the type system prevents such code from even compiling.
-Marshall On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 6:40 AM Jack Andrews <[email protected]> wrote: > "For those who are unfamiliar, TypeScript is a language that brings you all > the new features of JavaScript, along with optional static types. This > gives you an editing experience that can’t be beat, along with stronger > checks against typos and bugs in your code." > > For those who've used static typed languages, have you ever programmed in a > dynamic typed language said to yourself, "static types would have prevented > that problem"? Just curious. > > > > On 29 December 2016 at 02:23, Björn Helgason <[email protected]> wrote: > > > https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/typescript/2016/12/07/ > > announcing-typescript-2-1/ > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
