The Great Divide

What hasn't been said about static vs. dynamic types in programming languages? Read on at your own risk, because here I go again...

When you think of static types what comes to mind? Haskell? OCaml? Scala? Dear friend, you are better than most of us, but you have clicked the wrong URL. Peace. See you in another post...

Did you say Java? Still with me? Good. Listen, now when the others have gone, just between you and me, the guys from the previous paragraph - they're on to some good stuff. Check it out, you won't regret it. But don't quit your day job, not just yet. It's a bit complicated, but did you ever witness extreme programming methodology implemented in a big corporation? No? Then picture this: Elbonians take over Dilbert's firm and make everybody do XP. They even send pointy-haired boss to a Certified Scrum Master course. Get the outcome? It can only end like the implementation of Carl Marx's ideas in Russian countryside. I am trying to say - there are ideals, and there is reality. In reality, Haskell programs have bugs too.

So Java, you say. How do you feel about dynamic types? Cool? Get out of here. No really, it's no fun preaching to the converted. See you!

Oh no, heaven forbid, you won't touch them with a stick. You're my guy then. So let's rewind to Java 1.4 days, after all many Java developers still use 1.4 and many others look back at it with nostalgia. Are you one of them? Ok. So what about pre-generics collections, do you think they are statically typed? Hmmm... And what percentage of your code involves collections? So this code was not entirely statically checked. Now add all the reflection stuff...

But then of course came Generics. And suddenly Java is much more complex. How do I make my code compile, gee, wildcards, captures... ?! I am trying to get something done, hello!... It's easy of course to blame Generics implementation, but if we learn something from the folks whom I kindly asked to leave in the beginning, they'll tell you that finding correct static type for every element in your program is hard. They of course think that hard is good, they are noble men with ideals, they like overcoming challenges. But you and I, we're just trying to make a living. So we curse Sun and back off to an untyped collection. Hm, maybe we're just doing the right thing? Maybe sometimes we just know that our program is correct, but the compiler demands more and more typing and wastes our time?

Java 5 was all about improving type-checking. If pre-defined types were not enough, annotations came handy. Define your own and test it at compile-time or at run-time. Did it ever happen to you that there were so many annotations, that you couldn't see the code?

See, more types is not always a good thing. Unless you're very keen on intellectual challenges. James Gosling said this about Scala - functional programs will make your brain hurt, they are for calculus lovers. He's right. It's the kind of pain you feel in your muscles when you start working out, you know, that indicates they are still alive... So working out is good, but we can't afford doing it all day, ha?

Maybe the appeal of plain old Java was that it's a combination of static and dynamic checks? So it's not that all dynamic is evil, maybe it's a matter of how much and where?

Give dynamic types a break. Who knows, you may find eventually that they're good for some things.

Peace.

P.S. I've done some role playing here, just for the record. I do love Generics, even though they were hard to master. Annotations are overall very useful. Right now I don't do as much Java as I used to, and I do other fascinating languages (static and dynamic) as I, for long time, wanted to.