from Hacker News

Dynamic Languages Strike Back (2008)

by curling_grad on 7/3/23, 12:31 PM with 45 comments

  • by llogiq on 7/4/23, 4:15 PM

    Yeah, that one hasn't aged too well. We've all seen the backswing to statically typed languages. Yes, some of them (e.g. typescript) run on top of dynamic langs, or allow for VMs (hi, WASM!). Why? Because ironically the same famed flexibility that makes it oh so easy to whip up a prototype is biting us in the ass when it comes to make a production-grade piece of software while staying on top of the ever changing requirements. So while we have a lot of python in ML (where most things haven't left prototyping stage), a lot of code nowadays is written in languages like Rust, TypeScript, Swift and others.

    Not (only) because that's faster to run, but because it's faster to change while still remaining somewhat working correctly. And the current crop of compilers not only can produce stunningly fast code, but also awe-inspiringly great error messages that put the 90's and oughties' cryptic error messages to shame. Try that with a dynamic language!

  • by kentonv on 7/4/23, 5:22 PM

    I remember this post from the time and I'm glad we've come so far since then.

    It turns out the reason static typing seemed like a pain at the time is because we didn't have good tools. You'd write code for a while, then you'd run the compiler, and UGH there's all these errors to go back through and fix.

    Now that my IDE highlights the errors as I go, not to mention has good auto-complete and jump-to-definition, I am much more productive in a statically-typed language than a dynamic one.

    Interestingly there are still areas where most people seem to prefer dynamic typing: service APIs. JSON everywhere. Is it because JSON is actually better, or is it because we don't yet have good enough tools for schema-driven APIs (e.g. Protobuf, Cap'n Proto, etc.)? If we had those tools, would schema-driven APIs be widely seen as being more productive? (I suspect so but I am perhaps biased.)

  • by raphlinus on 7/4/23, 5:41 PM

    I think the suitable followup to this is the Richard Feldman talk, "Why Static Typing Came Back."[1] It gives the major reasons why one would prefer one over the other, and makes the case that static types can provide most of the actual benefits of dynamic languages, but the reverse is not true.

    [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tml94je2edk

  • by bluefishinit on 7/4/23, 4:14 PM

    The 2023 version should have "Tools: Dependency Management" and "Tools: Distribution", two areas where dynamic languages have fallen far behind more modern statically typed, compiled languages like Rust and Go.

  • by dehrmann on 7/4/23, 7:18 PM

    There's a joke that dynamically typed languages are just statically typed languages with one type: hashtable.

  • by chucke on 7/4/23, 7:31 PM

    Let's meet again in 20 years, when developers discover dynamic languages again.

  • by agnosticmantis on 7/4/23, 6:28 PM

    Recording of the lecture:

    https://youtu.be/tz-Bb-D6teE

  • by snailtrail on 7/5/23, 4:19 AM

    Can’t believe I had to live through this BS. Thank god folks embraced low entropy code