re: The broken promise of static typing VIEW POST


I may be missing something, but I always thought that the value of static languages was in API and framework discoverability (aka strong autocomplete), not in avoiding bugs. When a variable type is known by the compiler, it can more easily figure out what you can do with it and avoid trips to the documentation. This is why I like static type system that doesn't get in the way (more C#, less Java).

Also, community plays a part. The languages with higher bug densities with some exceptions seem to attract more beginner programmers.

Hi Supe,

Thanks a lot for the comments.

I agree that autocomplete is nice way of discovering what a library API provides.

There is a reddit discussion about this specific thing. Still autocomplete is so handy...

It is interesting what you point about "beginner" languages, but if you remove from them picture, the data still doesn't show that advanced static languages do any better than "simpler" languages.

Thanks again!


code of conduct - report abuse