I am more productive in a language with an expressive type system (e.g. Haskell) than one without. Thinking about types not only guides me towards a working solution quickly, but the checker catches all my minor mistakes.
In Haskell, you can actually defer all type errors to runtime if you want to. But I have never felt this makes me more productive.
It's unclear to me how a person can be productive if the language doesn't value correctness.
There are plenty of real world situations where neither the requirements nor the prerequisites value correctness, but getting an 80% or even 99% correct set of results while flagging the unhandled cases is very valuable.
Python as a structured upgrade to Excel.
Re:Python Is Eating the World
by hombre_fatal on Monday August 12, 2019 @04:32AM
(#20673580)
I'd say the most immediate value/payoff of correctness is ensuring your own code is consistent with what you think it does rather than correct wrt to some sort of external specification.
just spit out a bunch of code correct or incorrect looks productive and good on paper.
Re:Python Is Eating the World
by MrBuddyCasino on Monday August 12, 2019 @03:36AM
(#20673300)
The bigger the team, the more distributed the engineers and the bigger the codebase, the more productivity is lost by using scripting languages. I find it infuriating because it is so frustrating and it definitely does not feel productive.
For a lone hacker, its the other way around. Compare e.g. to Golang's "programming at scale" rationale.
Yes I agree that if you’re using Python for a large scale project involving lots of developers its not the best; but that’s because it doesn’t have a good type system.
You can’t work out why people like it so much because of this misconception. The languages that you gave as examples most definitely do _not_ value your productivity, it values correctness as enforced by a type system and refactoring needed for large projects.