> For those who've used static typed languages, have you ever programmed in a > dynamic typed language said to yourself, "static types would have prevented > that problem"? Just curious.
I have programmed in C for over 25 years and APL for over 40 years. There may have been a few occasions where I might have thought that, that static types would have prevented some problem or other. These are far outnumbered by the number of times where I used (and am using) "super dynamic type" techniques. For example, to do +/b where b is a bit vector, I don't do it a bit at a time. See http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Essays/Sum_of_a_Bit_Array . I suppose when I am programming in C the static typing does catch some errors at compile time. It's hard to tell because I have long adjusted to the static typing. But I have no doubt that static typing only catches easy problems. On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 3:39 AM, Jack Andrews <[email protected]> wrote: > "For those who are unfamiliar, TypeScript is a language that brings you all > the new features of JavaScript, along with optional static types. This > gives you an editing experience that can’t be beat, along with stronger > checks against typos and bugs in your code." > > For those who've used static typed languages, have you ever programmed in a > dynamic typed language said to yourself, "static types would have prevented > that problem"? Just curious. > > > > On 29 December 2016 at 02:23, Björn Helgason <[email protected]> wrote: > > > https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/typescript/2016/12/07/ > > announcing-typescript-2-1/ > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
