[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Looking for quote on static vs dynamic typing
> X-VirusChecked: Checked
> X-Env-Sender: Alistair_Bayley@ldn.invesco.com
> X-Msg-Ref: server-33.tower-14.messagelabs.com!1057913751!10008
> From: "Bayley, Alistair" <Alistair_Bayley@ldn.invesco.com>
> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:55:45 +0100
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Sender: email@example.com
> Precedence: bulk
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (22.214.171.124-2003-05-19-exp)
> A while ago there was one of those static-vs-dynamic debates (in the hackers
> and painters thread, I think), and somewhere (I'm sure) someone mentioned a
> quote along the lines of:
> Early on in a project, as code is rapidly evolving, you want static typing
> to help you as much as possible. When the code has matured (it's well tested
> and not changing much), you want more dynamic typing so that the design can
> be more flexible.
> Can anyone remember who said this?
Not me. But it's interesting. Usually the argument goes the other way:
Early on in a project, as code is rapidly evolving, you want dynamic
typing to keep as many design options open as possible. When the code has
matured (it's well tested and not changing much), you want more static
typing for efficiency and to help root out obscure bugs that may be
waiting to manifest themselves.
The Dylan language, for one, explicitly adopted the above philosophy.