News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Diminishing returns of static typing by always_good on Monday October 02, 2017 @01:09PM (#15385698)
You're kinda damning it with faint praise when you say that you can use dynamically typed languages on small projects that fit in your head (and are also probably written by a single developer).

You can pretty much use any language in that scenario. But the chickens come to roost around day 30+ or so.

Re:Diminishing returns of static typing by icebraining on Monday October 02, 2017 @01:43PM (#15386022)
A large project is a poorly decoupled set of small projects.
Re:Diminishing returns of static typing by orthecreedence on Monday October 02, 2017 @05:18PM (#15388050)
True, once my libraries get bigger than five or six assembly instructions, I tend to break them down to a more manageable size.
Re:Diminishing returns of static typing by always_good on Monday October 02, 2017 @09:19PM (#15389335)
May be.

Meanwhile real-world non-trivial projects tend to be large projects.

Nice to be prepared for that instead of gambling on "surely we'll extract out smaller projects that fall on the right abstraction boundaries in the face of unknown future requirements."

Re:Diminishing returns of static typing by ubernostrum on Monday October 02, 2017 @02:06PM (#15386259)
Personally I'd only use a language like C or C++ or Java for a tiny puny baby child's toy program. They're fundamentally unfit for real-world codebases.
Re:Diminishing returns of static typing by KMag on Monday October 02, 2017 @02:29PM (#15386458)
I'm probably being trolled, but I'll bite.

How big are the "real-world codebases" you're talking about, and how many programmers are working on the code? Once you hit 5-10 million lines of code and/or thousands of developers, static typing really helps manage complexity.

Re:Diminishing returns of static typing by ubernostrum on Tuesday October 03, 2017 @10:56AM (#15392810)
It's more that I get tired of this argument and decided to try to pre-emptively spoil it.