My two cents on Static Typing
Wednesday, May 16th, 2007While I was wondering if using haXe or Java with my server, I’ve stumbled upon some discussion on Static Typing (Java) vs. Dynamic Typing (Ruby, Php).
In a really interesting blog post (read the comments too) I found this touching phrase:
“Static typing is Communist Bureaucracy”.
In short: since we (should) have pervasive testing, Static Typing is only more testing. However, a comment is enlighting:
I’m finding this logic hard to follow. Testing is good, coverage is good. Static typing is, among other things, a way to have the compiler test your code for type issues. Since we like testing, this makes static typing good, right?
But Static Typing not only prevent you to do mistakes, like typos, it allows your IDE to know what you are doing:
DynamicStatic Typing speeds up development because there is physically less to type since ctrl+space and ctrl+2 write the declarations for you.
Its seems obvious to me that Dynamic Typing is worth the catch only for a quick start or for learning.
Since almost all of the dynamically typed languages (like Actionscript, Perl, Php) have migrated to some kind of Static Typing (eg: Type Inference), there should be a reason.
Periodically, a new Dynamically Typed language spawn, attracting junior/tired programmers with the mirage of the simplicity and the less-to-type-ing, riding the hype until his young audience grows and start doing large projects hoping not to call a function with the wrong arguments.
Only then they realize the big truth: Static Typing is just more informations in the source code.
And more information means less wondering-what-object-was or what-was-the-method-name-and-parameters or who-instantiate-this-object, not to mention static analysis.
And hey, they have invented Javadoc-like documentation and Annotations just to add some more information, why remove one of the most important?