Re:Alan Kay and OO Programming
by golergka on Wednesday May 22, 2019 @05:29AM
(#19979395)
> My primary benefit is not spending the time telling the computer things it should already know.
Sounds like you're in favour of type inference, not dynamic typing. A lot of statically typed languages don't need you to type out type declarations of your functions.
> Dev time is the most limited resource, I prefer not to spend it restating the obvious.
But on a typical dev job, you spend 10 times more reading code than writing it. And when you read, these type declarations actually save your time.
> The biggest benefit I see most static typing advocates benefiting from is IDE-hints, not compile-time checking.
Uhm, no? I'm pretty sure it's about the guarantees that compiled languages give you - the more invariants, the better. The same logic as with immutability.
Sounds like you're in favour of type inference, not dynamic typing. A lot of statically typed languages don't need you to type out type declarations of your functions.
> Dev time is the most limited resource, I prefer not to spend it restating the obvious.
But on a typical dev job, you spend 10 times more reading code than writing it. And when you read, these type declarations actually save your time.
> The biggest benefit I see most static typing advocates benefiting from is IDE-hints, not compile-time checking.
Uhm, no? I'm pretty sure it's about the guarantees that compiled languages give you - the more invariants, the better. The same logic as with immutability.