Static and Dynamic Typing

Pursuant to an idiotic discussion that I'm just not going to link to, I have formulated a general rule about type discussions:

Computer scientists have reasonable disagreements over the meaning of "static" and "dynamic" typing. Computer programmers have unreasonable disagreements over the meaning of "static" and "dynamic" typing.

4 Comments

That sounds like a good rule with one small change. I would put the last "typing" in quotes. I have been and seen enough arguments between programmers where they simply just do not understand types as a base concept, forget about "static" and "dynamic".

I actually think the way languages like Java are taught is to blame. Because they teach programmers that a type system is just there to slap you on the wrist when you do something wrong and is not really a powerful aspect of the language itself. Things like interfaces are taught as simply contracts and not from the perspective of the type system.

Static typing is great because it makes you think about the data you are processing........

Static typing sucks because it makes you think about the data you are processing....

Dynamic typing is great because it allows non-programmers to write functional scripts.....

Dynamic typing sucks because it allows non-programmers to write functional scripts.....

I like mjd's talk on types, mostly because he tends to actually know and think about things and most people just pull ideas out of their asses.

Leave a comment

About Ovid

user-pic Have Perl; Will Travel. Freelance Perl/Testing/Agile consultant. Photo by http://www.circle23.com/. Warning: that site is not safe for work. The photographer is a good friend of mine, though, and it's appropriate to credit his work.