News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Study of 49 programmers: static type system had no effect on development time. Parent comment

Re:Study of 49 programmers: static type system had no effect... by weavejester on Friday June 08, 2012 @05:19PM (#4086212)
I can understand using static typing if you already have a large codebase that's statically typed, but is there any reason you'd start a project with a statically typed language?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Study of 49 programmers: static type system had no effect... by akkartik on Friday June 08, 2012 @05:27PM (#4086238)
Yeah the benefits of static typing are front-loaded at the start of a project. I might rewrite in a statically-typed language for performance if it ever needs it, but I wouldn't start statically-typed.

My lisp interpreter above allows me to tear out a lisp function and replace it with a C function, while leaving the unit tests untouched.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Study of 49 programmers: static type system had no effect... by pjmlp on Sunday June 10, 2012 @04:01AM (#4090509)
Crappy developers for one.

Most enterprise projects with modules developed in offshore, suffer from crappy developers that barely know one single programming language.

Forcing them to write lots of unit tests as required by dynamic languages development leads to nothing.

The only way to minimize broken systems is to use languages that force them to stay on course.

[ Parent | on HN ]