Do you guys have any concrete examples? Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Dec 2013, at 10:13, Korny Sietsma <ko...@sietsma.com> wrote: > This ties in nicely to my summary of how I feel about static typing: Static > typing is a premature optimisation. Like most optimisations, it has genuine > value, but if you apply it globally and too early, you end up causing more > pain than you gain. > > "sometime type discussions lead to lead to early and convenient detection of > bugs" - I'd agree with this; but in my experience, most of the bugs caught by > type systems are relatively simple and straightforward, and not the sort of > bugs that make it into production. I've almost never seen a _serious_ bug > caused by dynamic typing - and I've seen plenty of serious bugs that type > systems would not have caught. > > Static types also help with rapid IDE/compiler feedback of errors - but you > often pay for this with slow compilation, especially when you need global > type inferencing; and with complex (and often buggy) IDEs/compilers. I had > huge pain getting the Scala IDEs to work reliably, last time I worked in > Scala (admittedly this was a few years ago) - and they are still having lots > of pain with performance, even though Scala doesn't have global type > inference. > > Statically typed code generally performs better - but if there's one major > rule I've learned in 25 years in IT, it's that code performance is not your > real problem, 99% of the time. Your real problem is more likely to be IO, or > poor algorithm design, or inefficient scalability, or slow speed of > development, or difficulty diagnosing bugs, or unreadable unmaintainable > code. I had people telling me that C++ was too slow, I should stick to C. > Then, that Java was too slow, I should stick to C++. Then, that > Ruby/JavaScript was too slow, I should stick to Java. None of these people > were right. These days, I'd generally optimise first for expressive code so > it's fast to develop and maintain; then for powerful flexible languages that > can do anything I need them to do, and last for raw performance. > > I'm quite attracted by optional static typing, because it means I can rapidly > code in a flexible dynamic language, and if I get to the point where I really > need types, I can add them. But I suspect that most of the time, I'll never > get to that point - or I'll use something like Prismatic Schema to define > constraints at my external interfaces only, which is where I generally find I > need them. > > - Korny > > > On 23 December 2013 12:24, Richard Cole <richard.j.c...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The things is that dynamically typed languages are easier to implement than >> statically typed languages. Static typing comes down to making statements >> about the program and deriving other statements from them. It leads to all >> sorts of interesting work including I think into systems like Z. However >> theorem provers are limited in what they can do, and it can be both limiting >> and a big distraction to you as programmer to get into a dialogue with the >> theorem prover about your program. It can distract you from your original >> intention which was to write a program to do something in particular. >> >> So simply put, dynamic languages are better than static ones because they >> don't distract you with type discussions that can end up being unprofitable >> or limiting. Static languages are better because sometimes the type >> discussions lead to early and convenient detection of bugs and can also in >> some cases make it easier for other people to understand you program or how >> to use your library. Static types I think also help refactoring tools. >> >> Having optional typing in clojure is very nice. It allows for a lot of >> experimentation and research on type systems and for them to be used to the >> extent that people find them useful in their work. >> >> It is why I guess Alan Kay said that lisp is not a language, it's a building >> material. >> >> If you want to know what are the current problems in static typing you going >> to have to start learning what people are doing in that field, e.g. is their >> foreign function interface from Haskel to Java? Why not? Can a well typed >> program still exhibit bugs? If the type checking is so powerful why do bugs >> persist? You might also look at what Gilhad Brakka was attempting to do with >> newspeak and his notions of types being anti-modular. You are not going to >> find a proof that that line of enquirely is fruitless, you'll instead find >> what people can do today in that field and where they're pushing the bounds. >> >> regards, >> >> Richard. >> -- >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Clojure" group. >> To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com >> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your >> first post. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Clojure" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > -- > Kornelis Sietsma korny at my surname dot com http://korny.info > .fnord { display: none !important; } > -- > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your > first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
