On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 08:40:16AM +0200, Paulo Pinto wrote: [...] > My employer does consulting for big projects. The type of entreprise > projects that require multi-site development scattered across the > globe, sometimes with 300+ developers. > > There is no way a dynamic language would work in such scenarios, > without having a constant broken build on the CI system. [...]
Yeah, at my work we have about 20-30 people working on a very large C/C++ codebase (one among many), and we already get broken builds every now and then, like bugs that completely break just about every feature in the system -- makes you wonder how any sane programmer could've checked in such a mess (and how said mess made it through the kangaroo code review process). Or blatant internal API breakages that make you wonder if anybody even *read* what they wrote. I cannot begin to imagine the horror of using a dynamic language in this setting. Static languages are already painful enough; throw in indeterminate typing at compile-time and it's a recipe for utter disaster, probably every single work day. And this is only 20-30 developers. The problem gets exponentially worse when that number goes up. At 300+ developers, the project would grind to a complete halt in less than a day (probably less than an hour). T -- Study gravitation, it's a field with a lot of potential.