On 6/4/14, 6:11 PM, Craig Dillabaugh wrote:
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.

The problem comes when you need to refactor your code and swap one type for another. You have to change all ocurrences of that type in that situation for another.

Reply via email to