> This is just blatant nonsense and the author of the article clearly has no idea what a powerful static type system is capable of.
A complete non-sequitur. It does not refute the fact that most tools such as debuggers are customized with dynamic languages. The few times statically typed languages are used, it tends to be some kind of managed language where a lot of type info is retained at runtime.
> no idea what a powerful static type system is capable of.
If statically typed languages where so amazing and powerful then they would have been frequently used as extension mechanisms. They are not. Meta-programming also tends to be poorly developed in most statically typed language. The paradigm is just very limiting.
> If you want to get a feel for what structural typing can give you, you don't need to look further than TypeScript
I know structural typing from Go. If you think structural typing is a proper substitute for dynamic typing then you simply have not used a powerful dynamic language before. Or you have not learned how to use it properly.
With dynamic typing you can easily manipulate types as objects. Structural typing does not give you that. You latch on to a completely superficial similarity and think it is somehow similar in capability and scope.
The attitude you display is what makes a lot of the static typing fans kind of off putting. The smug superiority complex. I prefer dynamic languages but I recognize areas where static typing is preferable.
> With dynamic typing you can easily manipulate types as objects
There are statically typed languages like Agda in which types themselves are "first-class objects" whose types are "kinds" whose types are "sorts" and so on. They form a hierarchy of Russel universes where functions can be defined at every level of the hierarchy. Typical ambiguity even allows to define implicitly universe-polymorphic functions that work on terms of every universe, i.e. you can write a function that can be applied to values _or_ types _or_ kinds just the same.
A complete non-sequitur. It does not refute the fact that most tools such as debuggers are customized with dynamic languages. The few times statically typed languages are used, it tends to be some kind of managed language where a lot of type info is retained at runtime.
> no idea what a powerful static type system is capable of.
If statically typed languages where so amazing and powerful then they would have been frequently used as extension mechanisms. They are not. Meta-programming also tends to be poorly developed in most statically typed language. The paradigm is just very limiting.
> If you want to get a feel for what structural typing can give you, you don't need to look further than TypeScript
I know structural typing from Go. If you think structural typing is a proper substitute for dynamic typing then you simply have not used a powerful dynamic language before. Or you have not learned how to use it properly.
With dynamic typing you can easily manipulate types as objects. Structural typing does not give you that. You latch on to a completely superficial similarity and think it is somehow similar in capability and scope.
The attitude you display is what makes a lot of the static typing fans kind of off putting. The smug superiority complex. I prefer dynamic languages but I recognize areas where static typing is preferable.