Carmack about static analysis

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2012-02-10 20:08, Brad Anderson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Walter Bright
> <newshound2 at digitalmars.com <mailto:newshound2 at digitalmars.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 2/10/2012 3:10 AM, deadalnix wrote:
>
>         Typeless is great when sketching some piece of code, but you'll
>         way more problem
>         at the end.
>
>
>     I've heard people say that typeless is just as good, because you
>     load them up with unit tests that verify the types. To me, this
>     doesn't seem like any advantage. I'd rather have the language
>     automatically check things for me, rather than worrying about having
>     complete unit test coverage, let alone the bother of writing them.
>
>
> I actually read an article recently from someone who had written large
> applications in dynamic languages and had come to the conclusion that
> the productivity gains you have with the dynamic typing are pretty much
> lost to the additional unit testing you must do to ensure everything
> works.  I've always had an uneasy feeling when working in dynamic
> languages but chalked it up to my own inexperience.
>
> Regards,
> Brad Anderson

I completely agree. I've many times wanted to have static typing in Ruby 
and JavaScript.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg