Most active channels

Most discussed users

Most supported premises

Static typing is better than dynamic typing in programming languages.

Static typing serves as reliable documentation.
23 supporter.

Static typing is better than dynamic typing in programming languages.

It is easier to detect and fix compile-time errors than runtime errors.
17 supporter.

Functional programming is not useful for most apps

"Functional programming" is ill-defined.
4 supporter.

Programming languages with fancy type systems (like Haskell) will never become mainstream.

A programming language has a limited "strangeness budget", and if this budget is exceeded, the language becomes too hard to learn.
4 supporter.

Computer Science is not actually a science

Science, unlike math, is based mainly on empirical evidence.
2 supporter.

Hitler Wasn't THAT Bad.

“History is always written by the winners. When two cultures clash, the loser is obliterated, and the winner writes the history books-books which glorify their own cause and disparage the conquered foe. As Napoleon once said, 'What is history, but a fable agreed upon?”
2 supporter.

Static typing is better than dynamic typing in programming languages.

Programming languages with fancy type systems (like Haskell) will never become mainstream.
2 supporter.
1 fallacy report.
Fallacy Of Irrelevant Purpose

Static typing is better than dynamic typing in programming languages.

Languages with type inference, as far as I know, either recommend annotating types of functions as best practice, or just don't use global type inference.
2 supporter.

Static typing is better than dynamic typing in programming languages.

Every error can be made a type error in a sufficiently expressive type system, with the extreme case being dependent types, which can encode everything. In practice, though, I think that type systems that support tagged unions / variant types catch many bugs with little effort.
1 supporter.