“I write all novel client-side code as JavaScript as a substitute of TypeScript, and it is a delight,” says the creator of Ruby on Rails. Posting on Twitter, David Heinemeier Hansson opined that TypeScript “sucked out a lot of the enjoyment I had writing JavaScript. I am endlessly grateful that Yukihiro ‘Matz’ Matsumoto did not succumb to the strain of including comparable sort hints to Ruby.”
Relating to static vs dynamic typing, “I’ve heard one million arguments from either side all through my whole profession,” Hansson wrote on his weblog at the moment, “however seen only a few of them ever satisfied anybody of something.”
However wait — he thinks we will all get alongside:
Personally, I am unashamedly a dynamic typing sort of man. That is why I really like Ruby so very a lot. It takes full benefit of dynamic typing to permit the poetic syntax that ends in such stunning code. To me, Ruby with express, static typing could be like a salad with a scoop of ice cream. They only do not go collectively.
I am going to additionally confess to having embraced the evangelical place for dynamic typing up to now. To the purpose of affected by a One True Proposition affliction. Seeing the shortage of enthusiasm for dynamic typing as a mirrored image of lacking training, expertise, or maybe even competence.
Oh what folly. Like making an attempt to persuade an introvert that they’d actually like events in the event that they’d simply loosen up a bit…
Today, I’ve come to understand the magnificence of multiplicity. Programming could be an terrible endeavor if we have been all confined to the identical paradigm. Human nature is far too various to simply accept such constraint on its creativity…But it surely took some time for me to return to those conclusions. I am a recovering solutionist. So after I see of us cross their coronary heart in disbelief that anybody, wherever may fancy JavaScript over TypeScript, I smile, and I keep in mind the times after I’d acknowledge their zeal within the mirror.
Hansson additionally sees the “magnificence of multiplicity” in positions about purposeful vs object-oriented programming. “Poles on each these axes have proven to ship glorious software program over the many years (and terrible stuff too!).”
