This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Java Buzz
by Bill de hÓra.
Original Post: Type Space
Feed Title: Bill de hÓra
Feed URL: http://www.dehora.net/journal/atom.xml
Feed Description: FD85 1117 1888 1681 7689 B5DF E696 885C 20D8 21F8
Dmitry Jemerov on the future of Java and the NBL: "Honestly, I don't know any language today that would become the next
big thing. Groovy is interesting, but it's a dynamic language and has
all the problems of dynamic languages. It's OK for small pieces of
code. But building something the size of IntelliJ IDEA [in a dynamic
language] would be a complete nightmare.
A dynamic language works great when you have a clearly-defined
structure of an application, where you know where everything lives,
where everything is, and what everything is around you. For example,
with a Rails application, you have a very strict structure: You have
controllers and views and models, and so on. It's all very uniform. You
can easily jump into any place of the application and understand what's
around you: Here comes the model, and here's the data from the Web
request, and so on. That's easy to figure out.
With a product like IntelliJ, there is no such uniform structure.
It's very big and very diverse. In my day job, I have to make changes
in many places of the code. Static types are the only thing that lets
me jump into any place in the code base and understand what everything
is around me. I need to know what things are, what I can do with
various things around the code that I need to change. With static
types, I see that immediately. With a dynamically-typed language, I
would need to spend half an hour investigating what goes where and what
is what before being able to make a single change."
Ward Cunningham on IDEs"They're complicated, and you have to learn how to work them -- but boy, when you do, they make those languages start to feel like scripting languages. [... ] Why should we need heroics in the IDE to correct for misguidedness in the language design? If the purpose is to continuously evolve programs for business, then what's suitable is to have clean object models that are easy to read."
Benjamin C. Pierce:"Types – especially very precise ones – are a mixed blessing in practice."