Skip to content

Comment on Dynamic Languages Are Static Languages (2011)parent

Comments

I can say what I mean with types

This is one of those things that is perhaps true in theory, but often falls short in practice. Static type systems tend to require (more or less frequent) additional incantations, but may not be sufficiently-express, even with those incantations, to express the desired intent.

(Or, the required complexity of the incantations may be a greater cognitive workload than actually writing the functional code.)

You don't have to do this in languages like Haskell either.

Most static languages -- particularly, the ones with the strongest standard libraries and ecosystems that are likely to support whatever it is you are doing -- aren't like Haskell.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.