In another thread, rubyfan made the following statement:
> In my experience programming in a dynamically-typed > language makes it much easier to keep your architecture more > flexible and amenable to a change in requirements
I like to think I'm open minded. But at the same time, I am skeptical of everything. On the surface, with my limited experience in dynamically-typed languages, I can guess the following:
1. If a change breaks something, the only way unit testing will find it is if you have 100% unit test coverage. Every method would need to be called with every possible param type, every field accessed, etc. This seems like more work than is necessary.
2. I can't see how refactoring IDEs could possibly be as intelligent as they are with , say IntelliJ, in a dynamically typed language.
So, I'm not debating his statement, because I don't have enough history yet with dynamically typed languages. But, could someone do me a favor and state why or how dynamically typed languages facilitate a more flexible and changeable architecture, in way that I can understand.
Previous Topic
