On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 22:13:33 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
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.
For sure there are situations where each approach will have some
ease of implementation/maintenance advantages.
The main point I have been trying to make is that I don't
personally think that static typing is any more mentally
challenging than dynamic typing - in most instances.
