undefined | Better HN

0 pointssbinthree7y ago0 comments

I am learning this lesson the hard way with dynamically typed languages on the server. If the documentation and database have to be statically typed, you should really use types in the code. So dynamically typed languages on the server is impossible (?).

0 comments

cphoover7y ago

No offense but BS. What you have claimed is totally unsubstantiated, and not aligned with my experience working on highly-trafficked eCommerce applications.

If you know what your doing you can write elegant, performance tuned, secure and maintainable code in a dynamic language. I've also seen poorly written code written in statically typed languages.

It really comes to who is writing the code, what kind of standards they abide to, and their architectural prowess.

eropple7y ago

> If you know what your doing you can write elegant, performance tuned, secure and maintainable code in a dynamic language.

You can! You totally can. But, statistically speaking? You probably won't. Neither will I. And that's why the minimal level of guardrails I'll put up with in 2018 is TypeScript and I'd really rather have better.

always_good7y ago

You're rehashing the old dynamic- vs static-typed debate.

But what the upstream comment said was just wrong: that because documentation and database are statically-typed, then the application must be. It doesn't really make sense. See their use of "impossible".

For example, your database types or your application types aren't what your API documentation annotates. Your docs annotate your endpoint contracts, not the implementation detail behind them.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse