Skip to main content
Software Engineering

Return to Answer

deleted 34 characters in body
Source Link
Matthieu M.
Matthieu M.
  • 15.3k
  • 5
  • 48
  • 69

May I ask a counter-question ?

I honestly do not think that Static vs Dynamic typing is the real question.

I think that there are two parameters that should come first:

  • the expertise level in the language: the more experienced you are, the more you know about the "gotchas" and the more likely you are to avoid them / track them down easily. This is also true about the particular application/program you are working on
  • testing: I love static typing (hell I like programming in C++ :p) but there just so much that a compiler / static analyzer can do for you. It's just impossible to be confident about a program without having tested it. And I am all for fuzzy testing (when applicable), because you just can't think about all possible input combinations.

If you are comfortable in the language, you'll write code and you'll track down bugs with ease.

If you write decoupled code, and test each functionality extensively, then you'll produce well-honed code, and thus you'll be productive (because you cannot qualify as productive if you do not assess the quality of the product, can you ?)

I would therefore deem that the static vs dynamic debate with regard to productivity is quite moot, or at least vastly superseded by other considerations.

May I ask a counter-question ?

I honestly do not think that Static vs Dynamic typing is the real question.

I think that there are two parameters that should come first:

  • the expertise level in the language: the more experienced you are, the more you know about the "gotchas" and the more likely you are to avoid them / track them down easily. This is also true about the particular application/program you are working on
  • testing: I love static typing (hell I like programming in C++ :p) but there just so much that a compiler / static analyzer can do for you. It's just impossible to be confident about a program without having tested it. And I am all for fuzzy testing (when applicable), because you just can't think about all possible input combinations.

If you are comfortable in the language, you'll write code and you'll track down bugs with ease.

If you write decoupled code, and test each functionality extensively, then you'll produce well-honed code, and thus you'll be productive (because you cannot qualify as productive if you do not assess the quality of the product, can you ?)

I would therefore deem that the static vs dynamic debate with regard to productivity is quite moot, or at least vastly superseded by other considerations.

I honestly do not think that Static vs Dynamic typing is the real question.

I think that there are two parameters that should come first:

  • the expertise level in the language: the more experienced you are, the more you know about the "gotchas" and the more likely you are to avoid them / track them down easily. This is also true about the particular application/program you are working on
  • testing: I love static typing (hell I like programming in C++ :p) but there just so much that a compiler / static analyzer can do for you. It's just impossible to be confident about a program without having tested it. And I am all for fuzzy testing (when applicable), because you just can't think about all possible input combinations.

If you are comfortable in the language, you'll write code and you'll track down bugs with ease.

If you write decoupled code, and test each functionality extensively, then you'll produce well-honed code, and thus you'll be productive (because you cannot qualify as productive if you do not assess the quality of the product, can you ?)

I would therefore deem that the static vs dynamic debate with regard to productivity is quite moot, or at least vastly superseded by other considerations.

Source Link
Matthieu M.
Matthieu M.
  • 15.3k
  • 5
  • 48
  • 69

May I ask a counter-question ?

I honestly do not think that Static vs Dynamic typing is the real question.

I think that there are two parameters that should come first:

  • the expertise level in the language: the more experienced you are, the more you know about the "gotchas" and the more likely you are to avoid them / track them down easily. This is also true about the particular application/program you are working on
  • testing: I love static typing (hell I like programming in C++ :p) but there just so much that a compiler / static analyzer can do for you. It's just impossible to be confident about a program without having tested it. And I am all for fuzzy testing (when applicable), because you just can't think about all possible input combinations.

If you are comfortable in the language, you'll write code and you'll track down bugs with ease.

If you write decoupled code, and test each functionality extensively, then you'll produce well-honed code, and thus you'll be productive (because you cannot qualify as productive if you do not assess the quality of the product, can you ?)

I would therefore deem that the static vs dynamic debate with regard to productivity is quite moot, or at least vastly superseded by other considerations.