[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: another take on hackers and painters
On Dienstag, Mai 20, 2003, at 04:22 Uhr, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
> People who criticize static typing should annotate their offering with
> an indication of how much ML they have written. That would make them
> far more credible.
There are some deep problems involved in this statement.
+ If personal experience is the right measure for evaluating the
usefulness of language features we don't have any ground to discuss
these things. Your experience might be totally different from mine so
+ If personal experience is not the right measure then the whole
computer science community sucks very badly. Where are the empirical
studies that try to assess whether features like static typing have an
actual positive effect in practice? There are several questions that
need to be answered:
- Under what circumstances do static/dynamic type systems provide their
- Does this depend on the kind of applications?
- Does this depend on the kind of programmers?
- Can programmers be trained to successfully adopt one or the other
- Do such isolated features depend on other features of a language?
Perhaps it doesn't make sense to talk about "static typing" / "dynamic
typing" as isolated features.
- Are the kinds of bugs that are covered by static type systems
typical/serious bugs in practice? Under what circumstances?
- Do the kinds of freedoms that are provided by dynamic type systems
reflect typical/important needs in practice? Under what circumstances?
- What kind of programs look unnatural with certain static type systems?
- What kind of programmers become too lazy with certain dynamic type
Unless we have some strong empirical data in these respects, we are
mostly left to our own subjective tastes. (This might be a good thing!)
P.S.: Shriram, I hope it's clear that I am not speifically attacking