Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

3
  • 2
    If this is a counter-question, where is the question in it? :) I agree that other factors are more important then static vs dynamic typing. However, dynamic typing advocates claim better productivity and static typing advocates claim better code quality. I was wondering whether anyone had actual evidence to support their claims. Commented Oct 16, 2010 at 18:17
  • @Winston: I removed the counter bit :p As you mentionned it's mostly claims. I think most advocates of dynamic typing are mixing ease of use with dynamic typing, while ease of use is mostly about tools. I do agree that the possibility to write quick throw-away prototypes and to experiment short commands using an interpreter are a productivity boost, but even Haskell (perhaps the language with the most impressive type system of the moment) has an interpreter for quick experimentation :) Commented Oct 17, 2010 at 10:23
  • But until someone actually does a study that considers this question - whether methodology, tools have a larger impact than language on defect rates, productivity - we just end up comparing anecdotes. Commented Oct 20, 2010 at 8:22