Re:Writing that changed how I think about programming languages
by foobazgt on Wednesday May 14, 2025 @03:54PM
(#43988536)
There's clearly a cost-benefit tradeoff on the spectrum of static typing. We aren't all using Coq. OTOH, the burden of "basic" static typing is very low at this point given the successes we've seen with type inference. [0]
It seems like all of the dynamically typed programming languages are pursuing (optional/gradual) static typing systems, and we've mostly moved on past "pure" dynamically typed PLs at this point. It's more about how-much and what-kind of static typing. And perhaps this depends upon your domain (e.g. Rust and its focus on memory safety while eschewing GC, which necessitates lifetime annotations).
0) I don't think type inference is a panacea. For example, it's not super helpful when you have a complex type system inferring crazy types for you, and you're stuck debugging them when the inferrer has failed.
It seems like all of the dynamically typed programming languages are pursuing (optional/gradual) static typing systems, and we've mostly moved on past "pure" dynamically typed PLs at this point. It's more about how-much and what-kind of static typing. And perhaps this depends upon your domain (e.g. Rust and its focus on memory safety while eschewing GC, which necessitates lifetime annotations).
0) I don't think type inference is a panacea. For example, it's not super helpful when you have a complex type system inferring crazy types for you, and you're stuck debugging them when the inferrer has failed.