Re:Yes, Python is Slow, and I Don’t Care
by coldtea on Friday September 08, 2017 @12:10PM
(#15201399)
>On the other hand, the idea that dynamic languages are more productive than static languages are laughable.
And yet it was common understanding just a couple decades ago. And not just from naive "script kiddies". Read what PG writes about Lisp in ViaWeb for example.
And it's not because we know we have faster to develop static languages, type inference, faster compiles (and also not because of Haskell etc). Those apply to insignificant minorities using Go and Haskell (insignificant compared to the huge hordes using Java, C#, Python, PHP, C/C++, and JS).
It's because of the fad mostly -- JS transpilers and everybody else going for moar types.
>Statically type languages prevent a lot of bugs and allow for a lot of automated provably correct refactorings that simple cannot be done with a statically typed languages.
Which is almost irrelevant when it comes to produce something -- you can get it to market faster with those bugs than with the extra rigidness.
And yet it was common understanding just a couple decades ago. And not just from naive "script kiddies". Read what PG writes about Lisp in ViaWeb for example.
And it's not because we know we have faster to develop static languages, type inference, faster compiles (and also not because of Haskell etc). Those apply to insignificant minorities using Go and Haskell (insignificant compared to the huge hordes using Java, C#, Python, PHP, C/C++, and JS).
It's because of the fad mostly -- JS transpilers and everybody else going for moar types.
>Statically type languages prevent a lot of bugs and allow for a lot of automated provably correct refactorings that simple cannot be done with a statically typed languages.
Which is almost irrelevant when it comes to produce something -- you can get it to market faster with those bugs than with the extra rigidness.