I'm really curious, does anyone actually love dynamic types? Does writing in a dynamically typed language make anyone happy?*
All the arguments I hear for using them are based on popularity, and related things, like libraries, ease of hiring, cost of retraining, etc. Nobody seems to extol them for the language's intrinsic benefits.
* For sufficiently complex applications, not write-once scripts
>>54906482
>Groovy
What a terrible meme. Learn Clojure instead. It doesn't perform like ass and look like it either.
>>54906482
Well Scala isn't dynamic
>>54906525
But clojure has dynamic types, so if the choice was up to you the developer (and not executives/management/designers), why not use scala for the backend and elm for the frontend?
>>54906482
>Does writing in a dynamically typed language make anyone happy?*
i think you're placing a lot of happiness on whether or not you're experiencing writing code in a dynamically typed language. between all the different kinds of languages i could be coding in, and all the different kinds of jobs i could be doing instead (including sweeping loading docks or selling vacuums door to door), i'm definitely happy doing what i do now, which is coding.
>>54906482
is that image from 2012?
Did you know this about JavaScript?
-1 == true // is false
if (-1) true // is true
That's right, the truthiness of an expression does not tell you whether an if statement with that experssion as the condition executes. Or, truthiness and loose equivalence with true are not the same.
What the fuck?
>>54906712
The true is irrelevant when you're only evaluating the truthyness of -1, which is true.
