Re:Study of 49 programmers: static type system had no effect...
by cies on Friday June 08, 2012 @02:49AM
(#4083066)
i agree totally with both parents -- i wanted to comment the same...
static typing would more benefit:
* large groups of programmers
* large codebases
* maintenance (which is usually taking more resources then the initial development of a large code base)
aditionally i've come to believe that not all static typing is created equal. most allow `null` to be returned instead of adhering to the type, then some have exceptions and not many languages type side effects (like IO). i'm basically saying that C/C++/Java/C#'s kind of typing is not Haskell's kind of typing, and that the potential gains from Haskell's type system are much bigger on the long run (while it also comes with a steeper learning curve).
static typing would more benefit:
* large groups of programmers
* large codebases
* maintenance (which is usually taking more resources then the initial development of a large code base)
aditionally i've come to believe that not all static typing is created equal. most allow `null` to be returned instead of adhering to the type, then some have exceptions and not many languages type side effects (like IO). i'm basically saying that C/C++/Java/C#'s kind of typing is not Haskell's kind of typing, and that the potential gains from Haskell's type system are much bigger on the long run (while it also comes with a steeper learning curve).