After reading “Rails is yesterday’s software”, I need to reply

Re:After reading “Rails is yesterday’s software”, I need to ... by vox_mollis on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @10:28AM (#11675581)

I've come to the conclusion that those who defend weak/dynamic type systems and other unsafe toolchains simply buy into the fallacy of the uber-developer: the belief that while other, lesser developers need static typing and analysis, I'm so superior that I will never introduce those class of bugs, ever.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:After reading “Rails is yesterday’s software”, I need to ... by amorphid on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @11:23AM (#11676132)

I like Elixir quite a bit, and it doesn't have a strong type system. The pattern matching removes a lot of the pain of weak types.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:After reading “Rails is yesterday’s software”, I need to ... by obstacle1 on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @10:40AM (#11675700)

Could you point out where the author of this post even came close to suggesting that Rails is for great developers who don't need static typing?

Or did you accidentally post this unrelated opinion in the wrong thread?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:After reading “Rails is yesterday’s software”, I need to ... by vox_mollis on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @10:51AM (#11675830)

I'm responding to the article that the author linked to, which does mention static typing. This comment is an attempt at a hypothesis for why some developers dismiss the importance of such features/tools.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:After reading “Rails is yesterday’s software”, I need to ... by jcyw on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @12:40PM (#11676846)

I found this equally true for the other side of argument too. Some people choose to ignore that Polymorphsim is a dynamic typed behavior. (Its general being multiple dispatch.) And the faith to compiler seems not come from the understanding of what a compiler is. The author of the original post doesnt seem to recognize Java is also a slow, interpreted language. Haha.

[ Parent | on HN ]