> They will teach you concepts you can take back into PHP or Node.js
Curious what these are. The only thing I retain back in dynamically-typed land is "argh I wish this was statically typed!"
Curious what these are. The only thing I retain back in dynamically-typed land is "argh I wish this was statically typed!"
I'm presently trying to make this a little better in my own team's codebase by trying to introduce Flow [0]. There are a lack of definitions for the monadic libraries we use which I'm presently remedying. It's not pretty -- and my kingdom for OCaml or GHC! -- but it's better than not having it.
Knowing the fundamentals will help you learn to structure code and think clearly about abstractions. It's the difference between merely using something and understanding how it works. In the latter case you have the power to exploit it.
I thought this was the way of the world until I got deeper into typed languages, where you learn why not doing that is good. Type envy still stings though.
This is just polymorphism, isn't it? Why is this not a good thing?
The great thing about statically-typed languages is that they help you write your software instead of giving you a blowtorch and saying "have fun". I know a lot of people find that a bit patronizing, but I'm not one to turn down help (especially from a bot that won't call me on it later).
I'm also not against static typing, but I am against thinking it's a silver bullet. Consider this: `function inc(x: number): number { return x - 1; }`. It passes the type checker, but the blow torch still burned you.