The strict Pragma is a Cultural Marker

Re:The strict Pragma is a Cultural Marker by flogic on Sunday November 24, 2013 @08:24PM (#6792007)

I'll concede that. I meant it more in the way people say "Rust doesn't exist." Yes there is software that actively runs, but by no means are either generally considered ready for "production".

My main issue though is that static languages are improving to the point where I start to wonder about the relevance of any dynamic language.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The strict Pragma is a Cultural Marker by kbenson on Monday November 25, 2013 @02:46AM (#6792952)

My main issue though is that static languages are improving to the point where I start to wonder about the relevance of any dynamic language.

IMO static typing can be cumbersome for exploratory programming. That said, I really like the added benefits it can impart. I think an optionally typed language may be the best of both worlds, but my experience with them is minimal.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The strict Pragma is a Cultural Marker by oftenwrong on Monday November 25, 2013 @07:41AM (#6793727)

I like type inferencing, like in Haskell. You gain the benefits of static typing, but you do not have to explicitly write the types all over the place. I find that the exploratory phase goes more quickly with the compiler there to provide a sanity check.

[ Parent | on HN ]