Interview at Lang.NEXT

[Ary Borenszweig via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 6/4/14, 6:11 PM, Craig Dillabaugh wrote:
> On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 20:10:51 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>> On 6/4/14, 3:33 PM, Craig Dillabaugh wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 17:31:56 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>>>> On 6/4/14, 1:27 PM, Meta wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 06:19:05 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
> clip
>
>>>
>>> But using function templates and the like you can still get fairly
>>> 'Python-like' code in D.  I find dealing with types to be one of the
>>> areas that requires the 'least' amount of mental effort in software
>>> development. I don't understand why people see 'untyped' languages as
>>> simpler for the most part.
>>
>> I was actually talking about having to specify types everywhere, like
>> in function signatures, the fields of classes and structs, etc.
>>
>> You can still have a language that feels dynamic but is statically
>> typed. The compiler catches type-related bugs for you, and you can
>> prototype something very fast. Then you can add type annotations (if
>> you want). I wouldn't say this language is 'untyped'.
>>
>> One such language is Julia.
>
> OK, but my point was that specifying the type (at least for me) takes an
> insignificant amount of time (and is very useful months down the road
> when I am looking at the code, trying to figure out what it is supposed
> to do).
>
> When declaring a variable, in almost every case, figuring out the proper
> type, and writing that type takes a fraction of a second.

The problem comes when you need to refactor your code and swap one type 
for another. You have to change all ocurrences of that type in that 
situation for another.