7 ms·
The author leaves out what to me is the most compelling argument against static types: it is somewhat at odds with interactive development with a running system
by danabrams 3y ago
The author leaves out what to me is the most compelling argument against static types: it is somewhat at odds with interactive development with a running system, as seen in smalltalk and lisp.
Now, not a lot of developers are really doing this. But it's still a good reason for those who are.
- kazinator 3y agoThe article's author is using Blub static types, in which you're declaring that the variable that captures something from the cache is a Pet handle. Under a properly modern static typing system, you let that be inferred: let var = cache.get("key"); var is of whatever type that the cache object returns. Even clunky old C++ can do this with auto. That author will most likely die in some statically statically typed corner he painted himself into.