[Pharo-users] Dynamic Typing > Static Typing? « games.greggman.com

Martin Bähr mbaehr at email.archlab.tuwien.ac.at
Wed Jan 20 11:07:45 EST 2016


Excerpts from Sven Van Caekenberghe's message of 2016-01-20 09:09:00 +0100:
> What was also in the original article is the point that yes, refactoring is a
> bit easier, more correct and more powerful in a static typed language, but
> you need much more refactoring there because of all this extra coding to
> maintain the type constraints (again for little gain).

which extra coding do you mean here? can you give an example?

i once translated code from untyped common lisp to typed pike, and the result was
almost identical. there was no extra code whatsoever. the only really difference
was that variables had type declarations.

looking at typescript for example, it has a feature where you can take existing
javascript libraries and add type annotations in a separate file. how would
adding that type information lead to extra code? that simply makes no sense. 

if you talk about extra code in java or c++, then that's because those
languages are different to dynamic languages in many other ways, not just
types.

greetings, martin.

-- 
eKita                   -   the online platform for your entire academic life
-- 
chief engineer                                                       eKita.co
pike programmer      pike.lysator.liu.se    caudium.net     societyserver.org
secretary                                                      beijinglug.org
mentor                                                           fossasia.org
foresight developer  foresightlinux.org                            realss.com
unix sysadmin
Martin Bähr          working in china        http://societyserver.org/mbaehr/




More information about the Pharo-users mailing list