> There is no real agreement on what "strongly typed" means, although the most widely used definition in the professional literature is that in a "strongly typed" language, it is not possible for the programmer to work around the restrictions imposed by the type system. This term is almost always used to describe statically typed languages.
(random definition found googling).
Who wants to know the details of those scaling issues can google for the Omega paper.
The "proper"™ solution to those design flaws was implemented in Mesos (and to my knowledge nowhere else until now).
And yet somehow Mesos failed... sigh.
It chooses the (perceived) cheapest thing with the best marketing. Always.
Ultimately it all boils down to two things:
- The projects being well written and well maintained from the outset
- Personal preference
I cannot overstate that second point.
It really is about time developers stopped pushing their own personal preferences as if it's some kind of fact.
Agreed, so let's all go to Rust or OCaml because they have very strong static typing systems. ;)
Both C++ and Go have plenty of warts, with C++ having way too many footguns and Go allowing you to use it as a dynamic language whenever you figure it's too much work to go through your problem with static types.
Seems very reasonable. Especially OCaml should get more of the praise it deserves.
If you need to stay on the JVM there's Scala which allows (with some discipline) to write "when it compiles it works" code.
The community also has the attitude to pretend that these pitfalls don't actually exist, which is very different from C++ where most peculiar behaviours are well-understood and controlled.