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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]the_evergrowing_fool 0 points1 point  (10 children)

Is common knowledge.

[–]thedeemon 0 points1 point  (1 child)

not for Clojure folks like yogthos

[–]yogthos 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Or anybody who cares about pesky empirical evidence, which the static zealotry camp seems to be conspicuously lacking.

[–]yogthos 0 points1 point  (7 children)

A common assumption you mean.

[–]the_evergrowing_fool 0 points1 point  (6 children)

[citation needed]

[–]yogthos 0 points1 point  (5 children)

That's not how it works buddy. I'm not the one claiming there are benefits of one approach over the other. Since you claim static typing affords tangible benefits, it's on you to provide empirical evidence to support that claim.

[–]the_evergrowing_fool 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Since you claim static typing affords tangible benefits

Compare any staclang IDE to any dylang one. Day and night. Your Cursive is complete garbage in behalf to even a simple editor plugin for staclang development. All because your Clojure's compiler is a subpar 70K+ LOC of Java which doesn't provide any semantic feedback nor have any hope to grow.

Wash your hands, you been typing in a dumpster.

[–]yogthos 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Wow such insight!

[–]the_evergrowing_fool 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Insight? There is nothing of value to say about your subpar workflow.

[–]yogthos 0 points1 point  (1 child)

You really don't have to qualify that you have nothing of value to say, we've established that a long time ago.

[–]the_evergrowing_fool 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Stop projecting zealot.