On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 20:10:51 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
On 6/4/14, 3:33 PM, Craig Dillabaugh wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 17:31:56 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
On 6/4/14, 1:27 PM, Meta wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 06:19:05 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:


clip


But using function templates and the like you can still get fairly 'Python-like' code in D. I find dealing with types to be one of the areas that requires the 'least' amount of mental effort in software development. I don't understand why people see 'untyped' languages as
simpler for the most part.

I was actually talking about having to specify types everywhere, like in function signatures, the fields of classes and structs, etc.

You can still have a language that feels dynamic but is statically typed. The compiler catches type-related bugs for you, and you can prototype something very fast. Then you can add type annotations (if you want). I wouldn't say this language is 'untyped'.

One such language is Julia.

OK, but my point was that specifying the type (at least for me) takes an insignificant amount of time (and is very useful months down the road when I am looking at the code, trying to figure out what it is supposed to do).

When declaring a variable, in almost every case, figuring out the proper type, and writing that type takes a fraction of a second.

I brought up templates because I figured one objection to my claim would be that it is easier to write functions in Python because you don't have to specify a type. D templates take a bit more work, but for simple tasks (like you would commonly have in a scripting situtation) they should be about as simple as their Python equivalents.

Reply via email to