On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 10:28 PM, Ben Bacarisse <ben.use...@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> writes: > <snip> >> Many people think static typing is key to high quality. I tend to think >> the reverse is true: the boilerplate of static typing hampers >> expressivity so much that, on the net, quality suffers. > > I don't find that with Haskell. It's statically typed but the types are > almost always inferred. If you see an explicit type, it's usually > because the author thinks it helps explain something. > > (I don't want to start a Haskell/Python thread -- the only point is that > static typing does not inevitably imply lots of 'boilerplate'.) >
Which goes to show just how misunderstood terms like "static typing" are. I wonder, is "static vs dynamic typing" on par with "call by reference vs call by value" in the way people pigeon-hole every programming language, not understanding that it's not a dichotomy? ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
