The engineers at meta worte a language + runtime on top of PHP to make it work "at scale".
If Facebook wants to make something work they have enough resources to throw at the problem to solve it. Regardless of whether it makes sense or not.
If Facebook wants to make something work they have enough resources to throw at the problem to solve it. Regardless of whether it makes sense or not.
I don't think that Facebook necessarily made a mistake at the time, though. Static languages have come a long way. I can prototype in them very nearly as quickly as I can in dynamic languages now, with the crossover point for where the static language is simply straight-up an advantage being roughly one to two weeks. Circa 2004 I would not even remotely make that claim. By the time static languages reached that state they were already in deep.
But I would consider it a mistake for most cases to start right now, in 2023, with dynamic scripting languages as a base layer.
Why keep repeating this nonsense? "Dynamic" or "scripting" aren't features of languages. When anyone says something like this, it's like talking about square chicken... (i.e. a category error). Obviously, you had some idea in your mind, and you wanted to communicate it somehow, but your readers will not know what it was unless you make an effort to analyze what you want to say and make sure it doesn't have internal contradictions and that readers can within reason understand what you are trying to say.
You seem to be complaining about something. My guess is that your problem isn't even with the language. Your problem is that some tools for working with your kind of programs are missing or aren't effective.
If you have a problem with it, you can take it up with the aforementioned everybody. Personally I think it gets perilously close to the error that if you argue definitions enough you can change reality. It doesn't matter what labels we slap on clearly related languages Python/Perl/Javascript/Lua/PHP/Javascript, I consider it a mistake to build a large system with them in 2023 because of their deficiencies, and given the extreme efforts being exerted trying to fix those very same deficiencies with things like gradual typing and strongly-typed languages like TypeScript that compile down into them, which includes the effort Facebook has exerted, clearly it is not a terribly heterodox opinion.
A mistake in what sense? What are the risks that you see with using these languages for large scale systems, and how do those risks balance around all the other risks that come with not using one of these languages and using a different one?
I was not confused by using these terms. I cannot imagine many people on HN were either.
Surely dynamic typing is a language feature? I can't imagine what else someone would refer to with "dynamic".
Languages are defined by their grammar. (or you can think about few other ways to define a language, s.a. a set of strings of some shape etc.) There's nothing static or dynamic about languages, just like there's nothing static or dynamic about integers or sausages.
In professional literature these words refer to the fact that some claims (or checks) about types of language expressions can be verified only at run time (when the actual value is known), or either at run time or prior to running the program. First is called "dynamic", second is "static".
Any programs can be checked prior to executing those programs. When there's an argument about "static" vs "dynamic", it is an argument about how useful static analysis can be. For example, in Unix Shell all types can be trivially inferred before executing a program: everything is a string, there aren't any other types. But this kind of analysis is also worthless because it doesn't help to check interesting properties of a program.
Non-professional users of this terminology tend to abuse it to mean something unrelated and inconsistent. You will meet a lot of claims that such and such language is "static" or "dynamic", even though, if you ask the person making that claim to explain what they actually mean by that, you'll discover that they don't really know what that is. Unfortunately, this "classification" is so common that a lot of people take it on faith, without even trying to examine it.
Here are some typical misuses of this terminology:
* If the language doesn't have type annotations, then it is a dynamic language. Of course, this isn't true because there are plenty of languages where type annotations are optional.
* If there isn't a compiler that performs static checks, then the language is "dynamic". Well, nobody so far wrote such a compiler, but that's not a proof it cannot exist. Also, of course, whether or not there is a compiler with w/e properties isn't relevant to the language itself.
* If the language has a mechanism to (automatically) reinterpret a value as belonging to unrelated types, then such language is "dynamic". Unfortunately, this makes virtually every useful language a "dynamic" language, which makes the distinction worthless.
You can probably think about other cases where this attempt at taxonomy fails.
----
To sum it up.
"Dynamic typing" is kind of like "West India" -- a result of confusion, a misunderstanding of the person using the term. The closest thing is "dynamic type checking". In turn, "dynamic type checking" isn't a property of a language, it's a phase of program analysis, specifically, when all values in that program have known types. Every program in any language can be analyzed at run time, which makes claims about some language being more "dynamic" than others nonsense.
For example, in your own words, what is the main difference between typescript and javascript?