'Static typing is against DRY principle' -- matz

'Static typing is against DRY principle' -- matz

---

Comments:

1. Udger R, 2015-01-12T20:49:56.899Z

   wat?

2. Henry Flower, 2015-01-13T00:44:46.710Z

   +Udger R writing interfaces (static type annotations) & implementing them (writing the code) isn't DRY. it's better to assign the job of writing 'interfaces' to a machine on the fly (== current duck typing).
   
   he thinks of 'soft typing' in ruby3: the interpreter would look if the object could theoretically respond to a method, and if not, warn a programmer. so no typescript-like stuff or python3 dreams about annotations that do nothing.
   
   e.g. it won't help much for metaprogramming but could be useful for most of the cases of silly mistakas [0].
   
   sorry for ruglish, this laptop has no cyrrilic keyboard.
   
   [0] I hope you get the joke

3. Udger R, 2015-01-13T00:55:28.396Z

   на рубях не писав, але описки страшно діставали в жабоскрипті в часи коли інтелісенса (практично) не було
   а щяс всі пристойні мови (але не так шоб популярні) з статичною типізацією мають тайп інференс

4. Henry Flower, 2015-01-13T01:25:58.726Z

   +Udger R an interpreter w/ soft typing is able only to dynamically insert type checks (presumably at run time or as a static linter). no type inference is done, ruby is too dynamic for that (read: uses duck typing a lot).
   
   in a such system, the 'wrong' program is never rejected by the runtime linter, only warnings are produced.

5. Udger R, 2015-01-13T13:24:18.155Z

   ну це я зрозумів

---

Permalink: https://plus.google.com/115290581164606462017/posts/hNahYoqYTV3