Comment

Above in this comment thread: Is Chandler's Demise Evidence that Dynamic Languages Can't Scale?

dynamic v static

Posted by Anonymous User at 2008-01-18 07:07 PM

While the rigor of static typing does enforce a strictness that is useful for keeping large codebases manageable, this rigor is to some extent the cause of the large codebase. In other words, I'd rather be maintaining a large codebase in a statically typed language (e.g. Java), than a dynamically typed language, but I reckon that the size (in terms of LOC) of a standard Java webapp could be reduced by about 30% by rewriting it in Groovy, Rails, etc.

http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2007/12/codes-worst-enemy.html

re:

Posted by ceperez at 2008-01-19 04:26 AM

I've read the blog entry. Unfortunately, the reasoning is too linear.

Less code therefore less complexity.

Less code doesn't imply less complexity. The whole idea of refactoring is too continuously reduce entropy. As a result of refactoring, one can lead to more code, however the additional structure leads to easier maintenance.

Imagine if Eclipse was refactored to a single monolithic code base. I believe it would have less code. Unfortunately, it's extensibility would be compromised and therefore would not achieve it's goals of supporting a community of developers.

How are dynamic languages shorter than static?

Posted by Anonymous User at 2008-01-21 01:49 AM

Groovy:

class Person {
String firstName, lastName
}

Ruby:

class Person
attr_accessor :fname, :lname
end

How is the Ruby version shorter than the Groovy version?

Peace
-stephan
--
http://stephan.reposita.org