(no title)
gruffle | 3 years ago
And yet your comments demonstrate the opposite.
> Dynamically typed languages tend to be simpler and easier to use.
Very debatable.
> This means on the whole they have less bugs than their static typed counter parts.
Not at all.
> The real issue with dynamically typed languages is that their performance sucks
Every time you say something like this it just makes it obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. You can write almost completely typeless, highly performant, c and assembly code, while high level languages with advanced type systems are generally not the most performant.
You seen to be confused about interpreted/jit/compiled languages and static/dynamic typing - which are not the same thing.
ReflectedImage|3 years ago
The key points are as follows:
* Development in Dynamically Typed Languages is faster
* Dynamically typed languages use less lines of code than statically typed languages by a significant margin
* The level of bugs is the same between Dynamically typed and Statically typed code.
"You can write almost completely typeless, highly performant, c and assembly code,"
Yes, I'm sure the LOAD instructions take pictures of cats as operands via their typeless instruction sets... What in earth are you on???
"completely typeless, highly performant, c"
well once someone does that let me know. The only thing near is Javascript and that is only faster for microbenchmarks not real programs.
gruffle|3 years ago
From one of the comments:
https://dev.to/aussieguy/the-non-broken-promise-of-static-ty...
> The article covers a study of the same name. In it, researchers looked at 400 fixed bugs in JavaScript projects hosted on GitHub. For each bug, the researchers tried to see if adding type annotations (using TypeScript and Flow) would detect the bug. The results? A substantial 15% of bugs could be detected using type annotations. With this reduction in bugs, it's hard to deny the value of static typing.
> Yes, I'm sure the LOAD instructions take pictures of cats as operands via their typeless instruction sets... What in earth are you on??
Have you written any assembly? Assembly generally has no or very rudimentary type checking, you're generally dealing with words/bytes and addresses, you can arithmetically add parts of strings, divide pointers, etc. Errors due to these operation will surface at runtime, not be typechecked.
> well once someone does that let me know.
You can use void pointers as return types and arguments for all functions in c code. The effect is significantly less type checking while having equivalent performance.