Hacker News Reader

>Prove how? They could have succeeded in spite of dynamic typing, not because of it.

Then maybe the burden of proof is on you?

If you started your career recently, it's easy to be caught up into this "static typing" as some kind of the only way.

And until you have gone back and forth a couple of times, building moderately complex systems; it's difficult to appreciate the advantages that static checking bring to the table. Sure, it's possible to achieve the same effect with unit tests; but having half of those tests written and rewritten for you by the compiler definitely helps. Back in the days, I wanted to buy into the Python/Ruby hype as much as anyone; but having implemented several complex systems in Python/Ruby, I'm not that excited about the idea anymore; once they pass a certain point, agile begins to feel more like Jello.

> Then maybe the burden of proof is on you?

I’m saying that the parent doesn’t prove its point, and I’m not attempting to prove its parent’s point.

> If you started your career recently, it's easy to be caught up into this "static typing" as some kind of the only way.

I didn’t, and the bulk of what I’ve built has been in languages with dynamic typing. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14675577. Dismissing stuff as “recent starts” is pretty cheap, anyway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com