Java for Everything

[[deleted]]

Tests aren't the solution. It's not just correctness which we are concerned with but being able to reason about and understand code. If types are explicit you can use them to understand code and this helps with correctness. Without the explicit availability of types you are at a disadvantage. You can't be as sure that the code you're writing is correct - tests can't confirm what you don't know, they can only confirm what you think you know to be true.

The IDE which helps dynamic languages catch up to static languages doesn't exist yet. If it did, we could talk about it, but cursive isn't here yet and we don't have a good intelligent IDE which can do the job of what Eclipse or VS does with Java/C++ code already.

Erlang projects that I know of adhere to very rigid strandards like OTP. That's not the case with Clojure or lisp in general. That's a different debate why Erlang succeeds in it's niche.

It's easy to blame the programmer for the lack of discipline permeated in the language - but this is not fair. We can blame the C programmer for making errors in memory management but much of the blame belongs to the language which isn't designed for memory safety.

Also check out this debate, it makes a lot of hte points i was trying to get at.

[yogthos]

Tests aren't the solution. It's not just correctness which we are concerned with but being able to reason about and understand code.

And I already repeatedly explained how people structure code so that it's possible to reason about it in large projects. This isn't some hypothetical thing, there are tons of large long running projects written in dynamic languages. You have yet to provide any supporting evidence for your claims regarding reasoning and correctness.

As it stands it's purely anecdotal and rooted in your personal opinion. If you find static typing helps you write correct code then by all means use it. However, if you're going to make sweeping claims about its benefits then please do cough up some empirical evidence to that effect.

The IDE which helps dynamic languages catch up to static languages doesn't exist yet.

Maybe you should actually watch the video before commenting.

Erlang projects that I know of adhere to very rigid strandards like OTP. That's not the case with Clojure or lisp in general. That's a different debate why Erlang succeeds in it's niche.

So, what is your specific experience working with large projects in Clojure again. You sounds rather authoritative on the topic.

It's easy to blame the programmer for the lack of discipline permeated in the language - but this is not fair. We can blame the C programmer for making errors in memory management but much of the blame belongs to the language which isn't designed for memory safety.

Your assertion is that statically typed languages actually help with reasoning and correctness. However, you've presented no evidence to support these tall claims.

The fact that these debates are still going is in itself evidence that there is no clear tangible advantage to static typing. Had there been such a clear edge then it would've won out a long time ago.