The Rich Hickey talk gets way better if you frame it as closed vs. open world instead of static vs. dynamic.
Conversation
Yeah, very little of it seems to actually be about static vs dynamic. It's mostly just a quick way for him to set up what he';s actually interested in talking about, which is closed vs open
1
2
Yeah, it's a valid gripe! Just mixed in with a lot of conflations with other unrelated things that aren't inherent to static typing. And then because the Clojure community seems to worship him as all-knowing it rubs off on them as well. 😫
1
I thought I'd give the talk a watch at the start of the thread but now you've reminded me why I threw my hands up and left the Clojure community. 😞
1
4
Yeah... it was okay, but you do have to peer through all the excess guck to see that. I don't have much time for gurus and cults of personality these days - feels extremely misleading and damaging, even if there is some truth in the message.
3
1
After giving this some thought (and deleting a few attempted responses), I posted this here: twitter.com/brendanzab/sta - hopefully this provides better clarity. I think I was reacting more against the style, the tone, and the conflation of static/dynamic and nominal/structural.
Quote Tweet
Different static type systems offer different trade-offs, and most are far from perfect. If you ask people to adopt them then you are asking them to accept their failings in exchange for some some compelling super-powers, and a promise that they will be better in the future. twitter.com/hillelogram/st…
Show this thread