What do people find so appealing about dynamic languages? [closed]

Question

I think the reason is that people are used to statically typed languages that have very limited and inexpressive type systems. These are languages like Java, C++, Pascal, etc. Instead of going in the direction of more expressive type systems and better type inference, (as in Haskell, for example, and even SQL to some extent), some people like to just keep all the "type" information in their head (and in their tests) and do away with static typechecking altogether.

What this buys you in the end is unclear. There are many misconceived notions about typechecking, the ones I most commonly come across are these two.

Fallacy: Dynamic languages are less verbose. The misconception is that type information equals type annotation. This is totally untrue. We all know that type annotation is annoying. The machine should be able to figure that stuff out. And in fact, it does in modern compilers. Here is a statically typed QuickSort in two lines of Haskell (from haskell.org):

qsort []     = []
qsort (x:xs) = qsort (filter (< x) xs) ++ [x] ++ qsort (filter (>= x) xs)

And here is a dynamically typed QuickSort in LISP (from swisspig.net):

(defun quicksort (lis) (if (null lis) nil
  (let* ((x (car lis)) (r (cdr lis)) (fn (lambda (a) (< a x))))
    (append (quicksort (remove-if-not fn r)) (list x)
      (quicksort (remove-if fn r))))))

The Haskell example falsifies the hypothesis statically typed, therefore verbose. The LISP example falsifies the hypothesis verbose, therefore statically typed. There is no implication in either direction between typing and verbosity. You can safely put that out of your mind.

Fallacy: Statically typed languages have to be compiled, not interpreted. Again, not true. Many statically typed languages have interpreters. There's the Scala interpreter, The GHCi and Hugs interpreters for Haskell, and of course SQL has been both statically typed and interpreted for longer than I've been alive.

You know, maybe the dynamic crowd just wants freedom to not have to think as carefully about what they're doing. The software might not be correct or robust, but maybe it doesn't have to be.

Personally, I think that those who would give up type safety to purchase a little temporary liberty, deserve neither liberty nor type safety.

Don't forget that you need to write 10x code coverage in unit tests to replace what your compiler does :D

I've been there, done that with dynamic languages, and I see absolutely no advantage.

When reading other people's responses, it seems that there are more or less three arguments for dynamic languages:

1) The code is less verbose. I don't find this valid. Some dynamic languages are less verbose than some static ones. But F# is statically typed, but the static typing there does not add much, if any, code. It is implicitly typed, though, but that is a different thing.

2) "My favorite dynamic language X has my favorite functional feature Y, so therefore dynamic is better". Don't mix up functional and dynamic (I can't understand why this has to be said).

3) In dynamic languages you can see your results immediately. News: You can do that with C# in Visual Studio (since 2005) too. Just set a breakpoint, run the program in the debugger and modify the program while debbuging. I do this all the time and it works perfectly.

Myself, I'm a strong advocate for static typing, for one primary reason: maintainability. I have a system with a couple 10k lines of JavaScript in it, and any refactoring I want to do will take like half a day since the (non-existent) compiler will not tell me what that variable renaming messed up. And that's code I wrote myself, IMO well structured, too. I wouldn't want the task of being put in charge of an equivalent dynamic system that someone else wrote.

I guess I will be massively downvoted for this, but I'll take the chance.

VBScript sucks, unless you're comparing it to another flavor of VB. PHP is ok, so long as you keep in mind that it's an overgrown templating language. Modern Javascript is great. Really. Tons of fun. Just stay away from any scripts tagged "DHTML".

I've never used a language that didn't allow runtime errors. IMHO, that's largely a red-herring: compilers don't catch all typos, nor do they validate intent. Explicit typing is great when you need explicit types, but most of the time, you don't. Search for the questions here on generics or the one about whether or not using unsigned types was a good choice for index variables - much of the time, this stuff just gets in the way, and gives folks knobs to twiddle when they have time on their hands.

But, i haven't really answered your question. Why are dynamic languages appealing? Because after a while, writing code gets dull and you just want to implement the algorithm. You've already sat and worked it all out in pen, diagrammed potential problem scenarios and proved them solvable, and the only thing left to do is code up the twenty lines of implementation... and two hundred lines of boilerplate to make it compile. Then you realize that the type system you work with doesn't reflect what you're actually doing, but someone else's ultra-abstract idea of what you might be doing, and you've long ago abandoned programming for a life of knicknack tweaking so obsessive-compulsive that it would shame even fictional detective Adrian Monk.

That's when you go get plastered start looking seriously at dynamic languages.

I am a full-time .Net programmer fully entrenched in the throes of statically-typed C#. However, I love modern JavaScript.

Generally speaking, I think dynamic languages allow you to express your intent more succinctly than statically typed languages as you spend less time and space defining what the building blocks are of what you are trying to express when in many cases they are self evident.

I think there are multiple classes of dynamic languages, too. I have no desire to go back to writing classic ASP pages in VBScript. To be useful, I think a dynamic language needs to support some sort of collection, list or associative construct at its core so that objects (or what pass for objects) can be expressed and allow you to build more complex constructs. (Maybe we should all just code in LISP ... it's a joke ...)

I think in .Net circles, dynamic languages get a bad rap because they are associated with VBScript and/or JavaScript. VBScript is just a recalled as a nightmare for many of the reasons Kibbee stated -- anybody remember enforcing type in VBScript using CLng to make sure you got enough bits for a 32-bit integer. Also, I think JavaScript is still viewed as the browser language for drop-down menus that is written a different way for all browsers. In that case, the issue is not language, but the various browser object models. What's interesting is that the more C# matures, the more dynamic it starts to look. I love Lambda expressions, anonymous objects and type inference. It feels more like JavaScript everyday.

Here is a statically typed QuickSort in two lines of Haskell (from haskell.org):

qsort []     = []
qsort (x:xs) = qsort (filter (< x) xs) ++ [x] ++ qsort (filter (>= x) xs)

And here is a dynamically typed QuickSort in LISP (from swisspig.net):

(defun quicksort (lis) (if (null lis) nil
  (let* ((x (car lis)) (r (cdr lis)) (fn (lambda (a) (< a x))))
    (append (quicksort (remove-if-not fn r)) (list x)
      (quicksort (remove-if fn r))))))

I think you're biasing things with your choice of language here. Lisp is notoriously paren-heavy. A closer equivelent to Haskell would be Python.

if len(L) <= 1: return L
return qsort([lt for lt in L[1:] if lt < L[0]]) + [L[0]] + qsort([ge for ge in L[1:] if ge >= L[0]])

Python code from here