@mars0i That is how I feel. Of course static typing has its use. For starters,
it makes my programs go faster.
However, the more i write lisp code, the more i realise that types has its
drawbacks. I'm not sure of the answer here but I have my suspicions: Can typed
clojure be written in typed clojure?
Anyways... the caption of this thread is slightly misleading... it was a bit of
an attention seeking title :)
On 24/12/2013, at 8:46, Mars0i <marsh...@logical.net> wrote:
> I don't think we disagree. The guesses I gave in my post only concerned
> people like those who frustrated zcaudate, and who, from what was said,
> seemed to feel that anything other than strict static typing was wrong in all
> contexts. Maybe I'm reading too much into zcaudate's post, though.
>
> (Also, so no one will misunderstand, when I said "'real world' doesn't mean
> business", I of course meant not just business. A lot of my programming
> experience was in the business world, actually.)
>
> On Monday, December 23, 2013 2:57:43 PM UTC-6, Mark Hamstra wrote:
>>
>>> Dynamical languages are above all oriented toward practical programming
>>> needs in certain contexts--in other contexts, static typing is more
>>> practical.
>>
>> Agreed -- which is why I find your speculation about "lightening up" with
>> "more experience ... meeting the demands of practical coding" to be unsound.
>> For those of us whose "practical programming" context includes a high cost
>> associated with most any runtime bug, greater embrace of static typing, not
>> "lightening up", comes with more practical experience. I can be happy using
>> a dynamically typed language when the price to be paid for getting it wrong
>> isn't as high; but all of my experience goes against "lightening up" in the
>> demanding programming context where I work every day.
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 23, 2013 10:04:52 AM UTC-8, Mars0i wrote:
>>>
>>> I came to this thread late, and have only skimmed some of the answers, but
>>> I think that the following, somewhat oblique, opinion hasn't yet been
>>> expressed about the, I don't know, maybe ... harassment by "type weenies"
>>> that zcaudate feels. Apologies in advance if I've missed a similar point.
>>>
>>> First, I'll note that I agree with many of the comments so far. To
>>> everything there's a season. That goes for type systems.
>>>
>>> In what I say next, I'm not trying to offend anyone. I'm expressing
>>> half-baked opinions about what I feel are general tendencies. I am certain
>>> that there are exceptions to every generalization I make.
>>>
>>> My personal opinion:
>>>
>>> Many of us who like programming like it partly because we like order,
>>> systematicity, and elegance, at least in our thinking. We like things to
>>> make sense. Some people have a greater need for this than others, at least
>>> at certain stages of their life. So things that seem more clean and neat
>>> are attractive. Full-fledged static typing has this character. It's
>>> appealing because it's orderly in a very, well, strict sense. I think it's
>>> probably easier to be religious about static typing and provable
>>> correctness as a universal goal if you don't have to deal with a lot of
>>> pragmatic concerns. So I suspect that many type zealots are students or
>>> were recently, and that they'll end up lightening up in several years,
>>> after they've got more experience with meeting the demands of practical
>>> coding. (That's not to imply they'll necessarily give up affection for
>>> static typing, but it's hard to be a zealot after you've freely chosen,
>>> many times, to compromise on formerly rigid principles.) Dynamical
>>> languages are above all oriented toward practical programming needs in
>>> certain contexts--in other contexts, static typing is more practical.
>>> Maybe some of the hard core static type advocates will see the potential
>>> benefits dynamic typing when they get more experience. But you can't
>>> prove, mathematically, that dynamical typing is better sometimes. Its
>>> advantage comes out in actual practice in real-world situations. ("Real
>>> world" doesn't mean business. I'm an academic coding solely for research
>>> purposes (and fun!).)
>>>
>>> My 2c.
>
> --
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Clojure" group.
> To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
> first post.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google
> Groups "Clojure" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/clojure/0I7u5yn01qU/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
