←back to thread

140 points ksec | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
simply-typed ◴[] No.41083880[source]
The fact IntelliSense and jump-to-source are supported at a very superficial level goes to show the heavy drawbacks of dynamic types.

Sorbet may fix things, but at that point, just use a language with more mature tooling around types, like Python or TypeScript.

Dynamic types offer dubious marginal benefits but bring tons of downsides. The demonstrations in this article reflect that.

replies(6): >>41083934 #>>41083947 #>>41084060 #>>41084088 #>>41084115 #>>41084491 #
pjm331 ◴[] No.41083947[source]
Or the fact that people continue to do a lot of development in these languages would suggest that the benefits are more than marginal, and the lack of a few editor features is not such a terrible hindrance.
replies(1): >>41085101 #
ht85 ◴[] No.41085101[source]
Strongly typed languages have a higher barrier of entry and require an engineering mindset. That's anecdotal but if I think of exceptionally competent people I've worked with on JS projects, all of them have spent time building and advocated for properly typed code bases.

The other camp "just hates it" because it "slows them down", as it seems they spend most of their time fighting the types but never get to the point where you get that huge return on investment.

replies(3): >>41085592 #>>41085773 #>>41090786 #
1. psychoslave ◴[] No.41085592[source]
I don't know, the ergonomics of the type system is not the same in all languages. A tool chain that report early useful feedbacks in a non cryptic sentences will certainly gains adoption quickly.

Unfortunately most of the time the result is at best needlessly cryptic, with zero thought about simplicity of use. Ruby has a reputation of taking care of this topic.