And a lot more bug prone. I’m just explaining the OP because people didn’t get it. I’m not saying dyanamic languages are bad. I’m saying they have different trade-offs.
Yes, that’s why we use typing, to get better working code more easily. That’s why I use type annotation and enforced checkers in Python. It makes it so much easier and quicker to create good systems of any significance.
I may just be an old country lawyer PHP developer… but don’t most dynamic languages also support static type checking and general analysis at this point?
Yes but no. Modern PHP lets you put types in function signatures and it will then attempt to convert your inputs to those types at runtime.
JS/TS and Python don’t do this. They have optional type annotations that’s treated as syntactic sugar. You can use static checkers against this but if you get an error like “expected string got int” you can still run the code. It won’t behave any differently because you have annotations.
Yes if you use type annotations. Languages like Python and Typescript end up resorting to “Any” types a lot of the time, which breaks any kind of theorem proving you might have otherwise benefited from.
Though even statically-typed languages can need to check types sometimes; parsing runtime data for instance. I can see how you’d do that with pure statics, but it’d just be shifting the work (e.g. if token == QUOTE: proc.call(read_str(bytes, len))). It’d be cool to see a counter example that isn’t unreadable gibberish, however.
tatterdemalion@programming.dev 1 year ago
It’s making fun of dynamic languages because rather than letting the compiler prove theorems about statically typed code, they… don’t.
DumbAceDragon@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Dynamic languages were invented by runtime error companies to sell more runtime errors.
gandalf_der_12te@feddit.de 1 year ago
What
TJmCAwesome@feddit.nu 1 year ago
It’s making fun of dynamic languages because rather than letting the compiler prove theorems about statically typed code, they… don’t.
deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
Turns out getting working code is a lot cheaper and more useful than formally proven code.
tatterdemalion@programming.dev 1 year ago
And a lot more bug prone. I’m just explaining the OP because people didn’t get it. I’m not saying dyanamic languages are bad. I’m saying they have different trade-offs.
deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
The problem with formal proofs for code is that it assumes the spec/ requirements are complete and big-free.
I find most bugs come from missed or misinterpreted requirements.
BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 1 year ago
And maintainable code is even cheaper and more useful than that in the long run.
floofloof@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
Ah, the long run. I keep trying to explain this concept to management without success.
FiskFisk33@startrek.website 1 year ago
The technical debt is strong in this one
deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
You call it tech debt, I call it last quarter’s profits.
Anders429@programming.dev 1 year ago
Cheaper? Yes, I guess so, depending on how you measure cost. More useful? Absolutely disagree.
deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
Industry will pick functionality over verification every time.
sping@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
Yes, that’s why we use typing, to get better working code more easily. That’s why I use type annotation and enforced checkers in Python. It makes it so much easier and quicker to create good systems of any significance.
ShroOmeric@lemmy.world 1 year ago
What
xmunk@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
I may just be an old country
lawyerPHP developer… but don’t most dynamic languages also support static type checking and general analysis at this point?Solemarc@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yes but no. Modern PHP lets you put types in function signatures and it will then attempt to convert your inputs to those types at runtime.
JS/TS and Python don’t do this. They have optional type annotations that’s treated as syntactic sugar. You can use static checkers against this but if you get an error like “expected string got int” you can still run the code. It won’t behave any differently because you have annotations.
tatterdemalion@programming.dev 1 year ago
Yes if you use type annotations. Languages like Python and Typescript end up resorting to “Any” types a lot of the time, which breaks any kind of theorem proving you might have otherwise benefited from.
xmunk@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
I know Java developers that are addicted to Object. Hit them over the head with an ensmarttening stick and reject their PRs.
tzrlk@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Though even statically-typed languages can need to check types sometimes; parsing runtime data for instance. I can see how you’d do that with pure statics, but it’d just be shifting the work (e.g.
if token == QUOTE: proc.call(read_str(bytes, len))). It’d be cool to see a counter example that isn’t unreadable gibberish, however.