Bracha v Felleisen “Types for an Untyped World” (2015) [video]

Re:Bracha v Felleisen “Types for an Untyped World” (2015) [v... by rhaps0dy on Monday May 29, 2017 @03:32AM (#14437902)

> That's also the only effect that has had at least some validation scientifically

Which effect, sorry? I can't identify the referent of "That".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bracha v Felleisen “Types for an Untyped World” (2015) [v... by mpweiher on Monday May 29, 2017 @03:37AM (#14437918)

Sorry, fixed. They also studied "time to completion" and "correctness" for a new task, and for those the dynamic languages did better.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bracha v Felleisen “Types for an Untyped World” (2015) [v... by rhaps0dy on Monday May 29, 2017 @04:05AM (#14437992)

Thanks. After commenting I read the first paper in the page you linked. The one about trying to give an advantage to dynamic languages (Groovy vs Java), and measuring time-to-completion, for 4 tasks.

Turns out a static language has a time advantage when using an API, but a dynamic one has an advantage when writing code (that nobody will reuse).

[ Parent | on HN ]