> Exactly. And you're apparently suggesting that there may not be a single case where you may want static constraints.
No, I have consistently asked for objective proof that static typing is a net win over dynamic typing, something you have yet to even address. I don't know if you're intentionally misrepresenting my argument or if you're simply misunderstanding it, but I think you should re-read this whole thread.
As I've said previously, I prefer static strong typing, but I'm also in touch with reality and to present my opinion and speculation as some kind of fact isn't something I'm interested in.
> I can only conclude that you do not know much about the reality if you think so.
If we're jumping to conclusions I'd like to conclude that you think all PL theory is type theory and that you're ignorant of every other bit of it (and also that you're the type of person to think your every opinion is fact. I think both of these have been on display in this thread, so I actually think that's a stronger conclusion than the one you've drawn).
Sorry, cannot reply down the thread, so I'll put my answer here:
> This is not necessarily true: Static typing quite often requires you to satisfy the type system
We're talking about static typing in general, not some particular implementation of it.
Any static type system with an "anything" type (think of the System.Object in .NET, for example) allows a transparent fallback to dynamic at any time.
So, claiming that "there is a cost" is an outright lie.
> I haven't stated that dynamic typing is better, but I have stated that people claiming one or the other need to have proof.
You know, there is a little funny thingy called "logic". And one of the most common tricks in logic is a proof by contradiction. When you're asking for a proof that static typing is superior, the simplest way is to start with "let's assume dynamic typing is superior". This is exactly what I did. Unfortunately, you could not follow.
> If your programs are as airtight as the "proof" you've given here, I'm not sure I ever want to use them.
It's understandable that a person who do not know much about type systems in particular and PL theory in general also apparently does not know much about proofs and logic in general. After all, type theory and proof theory are indistinguishable.
> You know, there is a little funny thingy called "logic". And one of the most common tricks in logic is a proof by contradiction. When you're asking for a proof that static typing is superior, the simplest way is to start with "let's assume dynamic typing is superior". This is exactly what I did. Unfortunately, you could not follow.
Condescending, but not to be confused with correct. I'll try as well:
Given your obviously limited knowledge and familiarity with English I can understand that you seem to have issues understanding my basic argument, but I'll restate it for you:
If you are trying to claim something as superior, you need to provide actual reasons for it, not just speculation.
I hope you followed that.
> It's understandable that a person who do not know much about type systems in particular and PL theory in general also apparently does not know much about proofs and logic in general. After all, type theory and proof theory are indistinguishable.
It's actually not understandable that someone who claims to have a lot of knowledge in type systems and type theory, as well as logic, to provide "proof" that in no way proves what was asked for. It's also surprising that someone who claims to be so well versed in PLT essentially says it's all type theory.
It's understandable if a person with reading comprehension issues would have problems reading this post, so if you have any questions regarding it (or the previous posts), feel free to ask.
It is very childish and stupid to respond to a proof with a shit like "no, this is not a proof".
> The idea that static type systems are better to use (in general) because you can make dynamic type systems on top of them is simply not something you can just say and then have taken as fact.
Oh, did not realise you're so incompetent (although I should have guessed after your epic fail with the gradual typing). Do I have to prove that 2+2=4 too?
Once again: dynamic typing is a subset of static typing and therefore it is less powerful. Period. You cannot do anything with this fact.
Also, funny that you did not respond to my accusation that you believe that type systems are only for "validity checking". Which suggests that I was right.
We bent over backwards not to ban you, gave you lots of warnings and cut you tons more slack than we usually do. You're aware of how unacceptable it is to post comments like this to HN, and still you did it repeatedly in this thread, turning a large section of it into a toxic waste dump.
Obviously, your account is now banned. If you don't want it to be banned, you can email us at hn@ycombinator.com, but please don't do that until you're sincerely committed to never spoiling HN like this again.
Please stop editing your posts 40 minutes after you initially post them in order to muddle the post history. You're literally removing entire posts and adding completely new things, even as responses to responses. Work on your netiquette.
> Also, funny that you did not respond to my accusation that you believe that type systems are only for "validity checking". Which suggests that I was right.
No, not responding to something does not mean "you were right". I think strong static type systems are useful in many ways and I've already told you repeatedly that I prefer them. I have literally no care in the world what you assume about me.
Can you confidently say that you've given even one clear reason why it's better to use static typing over dynamic typing in this thread? You've gone on one rant about the fact that you can build a dynamic type system on top of a static one, but haven't actually presented even one fact about why it's better to use static typing over dynamic typing.
No one, in their next project, is going to build a dynamic type system in their static one, and then jerk off over that fact, when they could just start working on their ACTUAL project. Would you recommend to someone choosing between static and dynamic typing to start with a static one and then build their dynamic one on top of that?
Your posts are full of bullshit, stupid assumptions and personal attacks. I only wish you'll realize what a disservice it does to acceptance of your opinion and how hard it is to agree with you even while holding much of the same opinion, because you're so insufferable.
Do you feel like you should be able to make any nonsensical argument you want and people should take that as fact/proof? The idea that static type systems are better to use (in general) because you can make dynamic type systems on top of them is simply not something you can just say and then have taken as fact.
Also, I should add, I think you lost the "this is childish call" when, two posts into this thread, you made assumptions about everyone saying dynamic typing was useful (they obviously are not on your level, amirite?).
You started this thread off by saying empirical evidence of which is better for practical use is almost impossible to get. You then proceeded to argue your position as fact, knowing that you had no evidence to support it. If you want to present your opinion as fact, then feel free to find actual facts to support it.
You and sklogic took this thread into an inner circle of flamewar hell. This is a poster child for the kind of discussion we don't want here, which pollutes HN for everyone else. Please don't do this again.
If you feel provoked, catch it before it drives you into an angry back-and-forth. That's not easy, but it's something we all have to work on in order not to destroy this site.
> Please stop editing your posts 40 minutes after you initially post them in order to muddle the post history.
HN does not allow to continue a thread below a certain threshold.
> I think strong static type systems are useful in many ways and I've already told you repeatedly that I prefer them.
This is not what I was talking about. Learn to read.
My point is that you do not understand what does it mean that a bigger type system is providing new semantics for the language. You still fail to understand it, obviously, because this is a central point of my proof, which you failed to comprehend.
> No one, in their next project, is going to build a dynamic type system in their static one, and then jerk off over that fact, when they could just start working on their ACTUAL project.
Take a look at pretty much any code in static languages - it is almost always doing exactly this: various degrees of dynamic typing on top of static. Sometimes it is ugly, sometimes it is done the right way (LLVM is a good example of this approach).
> Would you recommend to someone choosing between static and dynamic typing to start with a static one and then build their dynamic one on top of that?
Even you somehow heard something about the gradual typing - which is exactly an example of this.
> Your posts are full of bullshit, stupid assumptions and personal attacks.
Omg. I'm only responding to your attacks. You're an uninformed and incompetent side in this argument, not me.
> HN does not allow to continue a thread below a certain threshold.
Click on the time (for example "2 minutes ago") to open the post and reply there.
> My point is that you do not understand what does it mean that a bigger type system is providing new semantics for the language. You still fail to understand it, because this is a central point of my proof.
And my point is that you haven't answered why using a static type system over a dynamic one is a net win for people, which is the entire point. If there is no empiric evidence, don't argue as if there were. You yourself admitted that there is no evidence for it, so why are you arguing from a contradictory position?
> Even you somehow heard something about the gradual typing - which is exactly an example of this.
No, the practical flow of doing that is exactly the opposite: Starting from dynamic typing and imposing types when they are needed, likely after an exploratory phase. You seem to be arguing from a much more disconnected view point where you take the position that the platforms underlying representation is what matters, and I am arguing from a practical perspective (What should the programmer choose for his next project?).
> Click on the time (for example "2 minutes ago") to open the post and reply there.
Shit. Is it a new feature? I do not remember this working before.
> And my point is that you haven't answered why using a static type system over a dynamic one is a net win for people
I am not interested in diverting the discussion from the topic. The topic was that static typing is superior to dynamic typing - i.e., more powerful and more flexible.
How does it translate to a "net win"? I do not care, honestly. There are fare to many factors other than the language features.
> I am not interested in diverting the discussion from the topic. The topic was that static typing is superior to dynamic typing - i.e., more powerful and more flexible.
> How does it translate to a "net win"? I do not care, honestly. There are fare to many factors other than the language features.
I'm glad we established that you don't care about the net win of this, so that we can agree that we're not at all talking about the same thing.
The net win is the entire point. I don't care how something is done if it's not a net win for me and my projects. It's irrelevant to say something is better in theory if there is absolutely no proof of it actually being better.
I can love macros, but would I go ahead and assert that a language with macros is absolutely better than a language without? No, they have a cost associated with them and their misuse makes things worse. Hence, they're not objectively superior to anything else. This goes for almost any feature, until you can prove a net win.
(Edit: The same goes for my point about C++ earlier. There are more things in C++ than there are in C, but most people would argue that C++ has too many things and that many of them actually make things worse. Hence, having more things in C++ could be considered a net loss.)
If your assessment was that I prefer being pragmatic and that I believe most things have a cost, then yes. I think macros can be done right (in Scheme, etc.), but even then they have a potential cost.
> Of course they are.
And this is obviously where we definitely diverge. I think macros are great, but I acknowledge that you can't make that statement without big disclaimers. You don't seem to care about being pragmatic, so for you it's more clear cut.
I provided you with a proof. Cannot you follow such a trivial logic?
Let me repeat it again, slowly:
1) Dynamic typing is a subset of static typing. With static typing you can do everything that is possible with a dynamic typing, at no additional cost, while the opposite is not true.
2) Static typing is far more than a mere "validity checking", as you apparently seem to believe. These advanced semantic properties cannot be added on top of a dynamic type system, so, even suggesting that a dynamic type system may be somehow superior is automatically declaring that under no circumstances you will ever need any of these properties.
> With static typing you can do everything that is possible with a dynamic typing, at no additional cost [...]
This is not necessarily true: Static typing quite often requires you to satisfy the type system and quite often is an exercise in what essentially amounts to paperwork. There is a cost.
> 2) Static typing is far more than a mere "validity checking", as you apparently seem to believe. These advanced semantic properties cannot be added on top of a dynamic type system, so, even suggesting that a dynamic type system may be somehow superior is automatically declaring that under no circumstances you will ever need any of these properties.
I haven't stated that dynamic typing is better, but I have stated that people claiming one or the other need to have proof. Dynamic typing is very rarely stated as better, whereas static typing is quite often cited as better subjectively, even if it's only opinion.
If your programs are as airtight as the "proof" you've given here, I'm not sure I ever want to use them.
Have your opinion and know that I share it (mostly), but also know that it's an opinion and that you'd do well in not confusing it with fact. Strong, static type systems are nice, but to say they're superior to dynamic type systems is an opinion and to present it as anything else is a lie.
No, I have consistently asked for objective proof that static typing is a net win over dynamic typing, something you have yet to even address. I don't know if you're intentionally misrepresenting my argument or if you're simply misunderstanding it, but I think you should re-read this whole thread.
As I've said previously, I prefer static strong typing, but I'm also in touch with reality and to present my opinion and speculation as some kind of fact isn't something I'm interested in.
> I can only conclude that you do not know much about the reality if you think so.
If we're jumping to conclusions I'd like to conclude that you think all PL theory is type theory and that you're ignorant of every other bit of it (and also that you're the type of person to think your every opinion is fact. I think both of these have been on display in this thread, so I actually think that's a stronger conclusion than the one you've drawn).