U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više
I enjoy using dynamically typed languages (especially Scheme) from time to time. I feel like I take a type driven approach when I do, but there's some kinds of exploration when it just feels like a nice way to work.https://twitter.com/lexi_lambda/status/1219103128836100098 …
I say this partly because some of the reaction to @lexi_lambda's recent very nice blog post seems to be summarised by "No! This is how you do programming! Everyone's problems are just like mine and everyone thinks the same way as me!"
I love reading about why people like dynamic typing, partly because it gives me a new way of thinking about things, but mostly because saying that something is impossible with static types makes me think "Yay! Challenge accepted!"
Anyway, please keep arguing about it, because it's fascinating. Just remember to be nice, and that your problems are not the same as everyone else's!
I've written a largeish production program in Common Lisp. At first I quite liked it. But as the program got bigger and needed refactoring I realized that I had become so used to having static types as a crutch that I was no longer productive in a dynamic language.
I think that's where I'd end up too. But I find Scheme (probably in a similar way) fun to play with.
I do the same! Though usually Racket or Emacs Lisp, depending on the project. And my Racket process does feel type driven, even when the compiler isn't giving me static feedback about my adherence to the typing discipline.
+1 We probably have some kind of Stockholm syndrome... :)
Having worked with gradual types has given me a different perspective on this debate. Dynamic types are great when starting to write a program because they allow for quickly trying out things and changing design desicions.
Do you have a good example of where static types get in the way while prototyping? I usually just let type inference do it’s job and ignore most type annotations. If the types don’t match it probably wouldn’t do anything meaningful anyways?
I think everyone should start with dynamic typing until they become familiar with its shortcomings. Then, and only then, will they appreciate what static typing has to offer.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.
