News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Lua: Good, Bad, and Ugly Parts (2012). Parent comment

Re:Lua: Good, Bad, and Ugly Parts (2012) by Hendrikto on Monday December 27, 2021 @07:40AM (#29702021)
People do not seems to have any trouble producing unreadable and unmaintainable code in statically-typed compiled languages.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Lua: Good, Bad, and Ugly Parts (2012) by DoctorDabadedoo on Monday December 27, 2021 @11:33AM (#29703863)
Not at all, but having been on the "dynamically typed spaghetti code with very obscure paths/interactions and no test coverage" refactor wagon, I would take a statically typed option any day.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Lua: Good, Bad, and Ugly Parts (2012) by cies on Monday December 27, 2021 @05:47PM (#29707844)
Indeed the quality to look for is strong typed, not statically typed.

Strong typed code is much easier to refactor.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Lua: Good, Bad, and Ugly Parts (2012) by renox on Monday December 27, 2021 @06:47PM (#29708389)
Unfortunately this requires some 'buy in' from the managers which means that many programs are integer/string typed instead of being strongly typed..
[ Parent | on HN ]