
The Inconvenient Truth About Dynamic vs. Static Typing - redshift1010
https://blog.jooq.org/2014/12/11/the-inconvenient-truth-about-dynamic-vs-static-typing/
======
oldandtired
Since static typing systems use dynamic typing to determine the static types,
his comment about dynamic types languages being dead is simply wrong.

Many years ago, it became obvious that static typing is useful in some class
of programs, dynamic typing is useful in another class of programs and soft
typing is useful across them all.

A range of typing systems exist now, they will continue to exist into the
future as long as we have need of digitally based computing systems.

We live it and we continue to solve the problems put before us.

As a side not, it was interesting that he didn't specify a List("abc", 0, 0.2)
and answer what the static type of such would be. There are many examples of
data structures that has non-uniform base types which can only be determined
at runtime.

Let the silly season start.

~~~
lukaseder
In Java, the type of such a List("abc", 0, 0.2) would be List<? extends
Serializable & Comparable<?>> or something like that. There's always an
appropriate type for any expression.

------
tedmiston
> Dynamically typed languages are dead

The author seems to overlook existing efforts from the dynamically typed end
of the spectrum to add type inferencing and optional static typing to dynamic
languages. Either as type checkers e.g., mypy [1] or for runtime improvements.

[1]:
[http://mypy.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html](http://mypy.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html)

