> My point is that static typing is reduntant, since you are > going to test the code anyway.
Preventing errors is not what I consider to be the chief advantage of static typing as I have stated repeatedly in this thread. It is a strawman.
> Did you run the code? wasn't the error visible when you > run it?
Again, yes, but the time it took was much much greater than than if I was using a static language.
> It depends if your language saved the old values. But even > if it did not, you could pause the program, fix the error, > then resume it.
You didn't answer the question. I would need to back up, perhaps thousands of stack frames. Otherwise the process would have to start over. Could I back the process up?
> It depends if your language saved the old values. But even > if it did not, you could pause the program, fix the error, > then resume it.
But everything in the program depends on what came before in the current branch. This is worthless to me.
> I have been using statically typed languages at 99% of my > programming efforts. I have only recently started playing > with Smalltalk and LISP, and I have found productivity to > triple.
This is approximately the same as my experience level with dynamic languages.
How much maintenance of dynamic code have you done? My experience (as I have repeatedly stated) is that the initial development is much faster but maintenance is much slower.
Previous Topic
