[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: dynamic vs. static typing
Anton van Straaten wrote:
> Pierce has a nice description of the subjective effects of static type
> checks, in TAPL:
> "In practice, static typechecking exposes a surprisingly broad range of
> errors. Programmers working in richly typed languages often remark that
> their programs tend to "just work" once they pass the typechecker, much more
> often than they feel they have a right to expect. One possible explanation
> for this is that not only trivial mental slips [...] but also deeper
> conceptual errors [...] will often manifest as inconsistencies at the level
> of types."
> Anyone who's made serious use of a language with a good static typesystem
> has experienced this. Think of it as a way to get an entire class of
> high-performance unit tests without having to actually write them.
While it's certainly true that there is a critical mass of people who
find static type systems liberating and empowering, I recall reading
statements by people who have made the opposite experience. They have
found dynamic type systems to be liberating and empowering - and they
include people who have tried languages with advanced H-M type systems.
So going from a subjective assessment to a claim about "anyone" is not
Pascal Costanza University of Bonn
mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org Institute of Computer Science III
http://www.pascalcostanza.de Römerstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)