Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Totally hear you on the static typing benefits, but let's zoom out a bit. As I mentioned before, I've got experience with both dynamic and static languages, and I think we're missing some nuance here. Specifically, I wanna bring functional vs. imperative and strong vs. weak typing into the mix.

JavaScript's weak typing does it no favors, agreed. But that's not a universal dynamic language issue. Ruby, for example, doesn't have those type coercion headaches.

Now, about Haskell and Standard ML—these guys offer a different flavor of static typing. It's not the Java-esque rigidity; it's more flexible and, dare I say, enjoyable.

On the tooling front, I've seen dynamic languages with solid IDE support and go-to-definition features. It's not a static-only perk; it's about the ecosystem's maturity.

That study is a neat data point, but it's not the whole picture. We should consider multiple variables like paradigms and type strengths, not just the static vs. dynamic lens.

I do also want to say in the defense of Elixir (and Erlang), with the advent of the dialyzer lib, it's a gradually typed language, and soon to be (fingers crossed,) a lang with a pretty unique type system. It will be both dynamic but have the same guarantees as a statically typed lang.

https://elixir-lang.org/blog/2023/06/22/type-system-updates-...

(Small tutorial on Set theoretical types, most of this is above my understanding though) https://pnwamk.github.io/sst-tutorial/




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: