News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Dynamic type systems are not inherently more open. Parent comment

Re:Dynamic type systems are not inherently more open by NicoJuicy on Sunday January 19, 2020 @08:46AM (#22091392)
I actually rely on static typing to make architectural code changes.

Why I would want to go to dynamic typing is beyond me. My performance/efficiency would greatly decrease. .

The next change I will implement will likely be to not allow null in a property, which can be done in c# 8

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Dynamic type systems are not inherently more open by beders on Sunday January 19, 2020 @11:22AM (#22092191)
The idea is that you wouldn't need large refactorings in more dynamic languages in the first place since you are operating on a different abstraction level.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Dynamic type systems are not inherently more open by yakshaving_jgt on Sunday January 19, 2020 @02:28PM (#22093395)
Nothing about static types nor dynamic types dictate what level of abstraction one must operate on.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Dynamic type systems are not inherently more open by simplyinfinity on Sunday January 19, 2020 @01:05PM (#22092821)
In the JS based project i recently joined (previously i was writing C# ), what i notice is that in a team of 6 people 4 are doing refactorings every sprint for the past 8 months.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Dynamic type systems are not inherently more open by NicoJuicy on Sunday January 19, 2020 @09:06PM (#22095665)
Lol, most of refactoring is bad code or not future-proof code.

Dynamic typing won't help with that.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Dynamic type systems are not inherently more open by iamaelephant on Sunday January 19, 2020 @01:02PM (#22092800)
Best of luck with that.
[ Parent | on HN ]