Dynamic languages allow some things that static supporters would call dependent types, which is not allowed in most static languages. Ironically, dynamic programmers are often surprised and tricked by it, leading to subtle bugs.
-
-
-
In what way do you see some dynamic languages offering dependent typing?
- Još 21 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
It's an interesting and well written post! However there is what I believe to be a misrepresentation of intent in the JSON parsing part: if my understanding of Haskell is correct, any error that can come from JSON parsing is ignored. We don't see the JSON parsing in JS
-
This is incorrect. The Haskell version will also expose JSON parse errors.
- Još 6 drugih odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
This makes me wish we called them explicit/implicit typed languages instead of static/dynamic...
-
Implícit fits statically typed but with strong inference a lot more imo
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
The Rich Hickey call-out was *mwah* chef's kiss
-
I think the article was great but was really disappointed by that part. You should be able to disagree with someone's philosophy without resorting to cheap personal attacks, in my opinion.
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
My favorite quotes: (..) the static type system is not at fault—it has simply been misused (..) At some point, you have to make assumptions about the structure of the value in order to use it (..)
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
I’ve made these arguments many times but somehow they fall on deaf ears. Frustrating.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.