Experiment: Unit testing isn't enough; You need static types, too

Re:Experiment: Unit testing isn't enough; You need static ty... by thebluesky on Wednesday June 20, 2012 @11:19AM (#4137367)

Tooling and performance are two largest advantages. Disadvantage is more verbosity, but it's a trade-off.

With dynamically typed languages I find that you still need to worry about types, but you have to trace through the code to figure out what type a particular variable is (esp. if you're not the only one working on a project). In a statically typed language that information is readily available.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Experiment: Unit testing isn't enough; You need static ty... by gnuvince on Wednesday June 20, 2012 @01:08PM (#4137904)

> Disadvantage is more verbosity, but it's a trade-off.

When I was learning Haskell, I wrote a program to count the value of a cribbage hand. The code was half the length of an equivalent JavaScript program.

The expressiveness of a language has more to do with the length of a resulting program than static or dynamic typing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Experiment: Unit testing isn't enough; You need static ty... by Peaker on Wednesday June 20, 2012 @12:37PM (#4137744)

The claim static typing adds verbosity is a common fallacy.

Haskell code is more concise than most dynamically typed languages.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Experiment: Unit testing isn't enough; You need static ty... by eta_carinae on Wednesday June 20, 2012 @06:55PM (#4139599)

> Disadvantage is more verbosity

Type inference cuts down the verbosity tremendously.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Experiment: Unit testing isn't enough; You need static ty... by papsosouid on Wednesday June 20, 2012 @12:41PM (#4137770)

>Disadvantage is more verbosity

How so? Java is verbose, but that isn't due to being statically typed, it is just a verbose language. Statically typed languages with type inference are no more verbose than dynamically typed languages.

[ Parent | on HN ]