• russ@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I suppose i should at least caveat by saying i don’t by any means advocate for all dynamic langs over statically typed, and i agree types/unit tests are necessary for most languages. So please don’t make me write python over rust!

    You can get the benefits of types/unit-tests via static analysis on a per-function basis with clojure and a library like malli, and for me that hits a minimalist sweet-spot.

    • jvisick@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Can you clarify what you meant about types, then? Because I’m not sure I really understand your point there.

      • russ@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sorry, I liked this hot-take setup and I’m shooting from the hip a bit. Maybe i actually mean objects/classes, not types? Can’t everything just be a bag of key-values, like in clojure?

        I have been building mostly prototypes (games and wm-tools) for a year, so most of my context is getting things working to see if they are useful rather than locking them down.

        I thought about my argument a bunch, and while i have alot of complaints, it all sounds like non-specific whining to me, so i’ve decided to give up.

        types and unit-tests have their place. Fine! I admit it! i was pushing a hot-take I’ve had on a few occasions, and I’m glad to see this programming community is alive and well! If you need me I’ll be in my clojure repl.

        • sajran@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s also important to acknowledge how different is prototyping from writing production code which has to be extendable and maintainable for years by multiple developers.

          Your take isn’t even very hot when we are talking about prototyping 😉