Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

14
  • 9
    I feel like there's a good question in here somewhere, but I can't tell exactly what it is. Commented Dec 11, 2012 at 15:01
  • 1
    Well, I put it at the very first sentence :) Commented Dec 11, 2012 at 15:13
  • Initially, I want to keep the question short. I just want to ask about the advantages of having no type in dynamic languages for dynamic requirements. But then, it will hard to discuss without a concrete example for everyone as a baseline for the discussion. Commented Dec 11, 2012 at 15:32
  • 8
    You seem to be under the impression that refactoring Dynamically typed languages is easier than Statically typed ones, because you won't have the compiler throwing up errors at you if a type needs to change. In my experience, it's the opposite. A dynamic language will begin interpreting sooner after the refactor, but there were be a lot of logical errors that will be very hard to find without significant testing, that could otherwise have been picked up by the compiler. As for avoiding rewriting large amounts of code, sometimes you can't. Implementation has to change with the logic. Commented Dec 14, 2012 at 14:05
  • 3
    Refactoring is not a "problem". It's part of the software development process. Commented Dec 17, 2012 at 15:54