Static Typing Where Possible, Dynamic Typing When Needed
That is how they titled Erik Meijer and Peter Drayton from Microsoft a couple of years ago. It talks about the end of the Cold War between dynamically and statically typed languages, and what the developers really mean when they say they need a particular typing.
I agree on many points with this study. New languages ​​such as C # 3.0, Scala, JavaScript 2, Java 7 (may be) erase this border. I was waiting for such an action from Python 3000, but I didn’t wait, and this is despite the fact that the presentation on the subject has been hanging on the Guido page for 8 years already and more than once the question has been raised in mail-lists.
Many often blamed PHP for the lack of a normal OO model, namespaces, or closures — as we can see, all of this is already present in PHP 5.3. Now, when technologies such as PHP, Python and Ruby have become equal in terms of language capabilities, availability of tools and libraries, the choice is already a matter of aesthetics. I have never been a supporter of the idea of ​​“The next big language”, but I was always glad to borrow ideas from languages. Among the dynamic languages, the next step was made by the creators of ECMAScript (its implementations JavaSctipt & ActionSctipt are known to many of you), in version 4 of the specification we saw optional static typing. I hope that this is another promotion to common platforms (JVM, CLR), which are more prepared for statically typed languages ​​and are dynamically dynamic over the last couple of years.
')
I want to conduct a small survey on preferences regarding the typed languages:
1) What language do you write in? Which parties are most attractive to you, and what are you missing?
2) What languages ​​from the “opposite” camp did you try to use as sensations?
3) Do you know such things as type inference & optional static typing, and how do you look at such a compromise?
I agree on many points with this study. New languages ​​such as C # 3.0, Scala, JavaScript 2, Java 7 (may be) erase this border. I was waiting for such an action from Python 3000, but I didn’t wait, and this is despite the fact that the presentation on the subject has been hanging on the Guido page for 8 years already and more than once the question has been raised in mail-lists.
Many often blamed PHP for the lack of a normal OO model, namespaces, or closures — as we can see, all of this is already present in PHP 5.3. Now, when technologies such as PHP, Python and Ruby have become equal in terms of language capabilities, availability of tools and libraries, the choice is already a matter of aesthetics. I have never been a supporter of the idea of ​​“The next big language”, but I was always glad to borrow ideas from languages. Among the dynamic languages, the next step was made by the creators of ECMAScript (its implementations JavaSctipt & ActionSctipt are known to many of you), in version 4 of the specification we saw optional static typing. I hope that this is another promotion to common platforms (JVM, CLR), which are more prepared for statically typed languages ​​and are dynamically dynamic over the last couple of years.
')
I want to conduct a small survey on preferences regarding the typed languages:
1) What language do you write in? Which parties are most attractive to you, and what are you missing?
2) What languages ​​from the “opposite” camp did you try to use as sensations?
3) Do you know such things as type inference & optional static typing, and how do you look at such a compromise?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/30538/
All Articles