Hacker News Reader

While I disproportionally use Ruby and JavaScript on a daily basis, this statement is referring to a specific type of (common) error, which is largely alleviated by the use of static typing, and therefore not exactly untrue.

I didn't take it as a disparaging of dynamic typing.

View on HN

It's not untrue.

But why the singling out of JavaScript? The statement is true for Python, Ruby and Lua as well.

And why even mention another language or class of language in a negative way? I propose that the sentence would better have been written as

> haXe has a very strict compile-time type checking feature that allows you to catch errors before testing your program in the browser

It loses nothing by removing the disparaging part.

My guess is that rather than give an exhaustive list, the author wanted to give an example of a familiar language _without_ static typing. As Haxe is more similar to ECMAScript than Python, Ruby, Lua etc. - it's the most appropriate comparison.

As a person who likes (the good parts of) JavaScript, I read it as trying to appeal to me with promises of less debug time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com