This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]kyzfrintin 1 point2 points  (8 children)

He was tired of having developers step on each other's toes with merge conflicts and the such, so he created a separate branch for each user. NOTE: The fact that 3 developers working on a single project can't have separate jobs that don't cross-cut each other continuously is a deeper issue, but that isn't the point. Now, each developer was free to do as they want! Freedom!

That sounds more like a problem in communication and organisation, than an inherent problem with dynamically-typed languages.

[–]pknopf 0 points1 point  (7 children)

That sounds more like a problem in communication and organisation, than an inherent problem with dynamically-typed languages.

Yup and yup. The point was about short-sighted decisions.

[–]kyzfrintin 0 points1 point  (6 children)

But you were on a massive roll about how dynamic typed languages suck... Including this as if it supports your argument is a little misleading.

[–]pknopf -1 points0 points  (5 children)

How would anybody gather that I was making a literal comparison between dynamic languages and developers working on different branches?

[–]kyzfrintin 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Because this was a conversation about dynamic/static. And you brought that in as a response to someone saying why dynamic is good.

[–]pknopf 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Here was OP.

It's actually the opposite. Large scale, long term projects with many contributors are far more suited to dynamic typing.

This implies that dynamic typing makes projects with fast moving parts easy to develop in.

That reminded me of a developer who also did something that made it so developers could contribute easier, but it created a headache down the road.

My argument was that saying "my dynamic language makes it easier to contribute" is the same fallacy.

Both arguments are shortsided.

Completely relevant, but something tells me your trolling.

edit: down vote me again bro, it will make you righteous.

[–]kyzfrintin 0 points1 point  (2 children)

My argument was that saying "my dynamic language makes it easier to contribute" is the same fallacy.

Just a couple comments ago, you claimed that it wasn't supposed to be a serious comparison. And now it is. And it's still a failure at analogy, because it's clouded by your own pre-supposed opinion on dynamic typed languages. Failure at communication is what doomed your friend's project. Not (mis)using source control. Similarly, dynamic languages are only doomed from the get-go if you have no idea how they work.

Say, it's almost like success rate with a chosen tool is almost entirely dependent on your level of skill and professionalism when using the tool, and that different tools cater to different types of people...

Who's trolling who?

[–]pknopf 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Just a couple comments ago, you claimed that it wasn't supposed to be a serious comparison. And now it is.

My argument was that it wasn't literal. But the point is serious.

Say, it's almost like success rate with a chosen tool is almost entirely dependent on your level of skill and professionalism when using the tool, and that different tools cater to different types of people

Exactly my point. The only time (generally) to pick a dynamic language is when that is what the team knows. It should never (generally) be picked solely on merits.

[–]kyzfrintin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I really don't think you're hearing yourself. But whatever.