>But at scale there are no success stories.
Do you believe this yourself?
Do you believe this yourself?
of course python/ruby/javascript have succeed in bringing value to the world in general -- but in this thread we're focusing on production reliability, debugging, refactoring.
as we see, dropbox is proud to admit that they hired Mypy core developers and fund the project, but guess how much they spent on the mistake of using python?
twitter, famously an advocate for Ruby, spent an ungodly amount of engineering to work around ruby, hit a wall, and switched to JVM.
Just the fact that mypy and typescript exist and have exploded in adoption is proof that eng. teams very quickly hit a sand pit when using dynamic typed languages. Mypy being funded by dropbox, Typescript funded by microsoft, shows the level of investment needed to support these dynamic languages.
And thats because of the fundamental tradeoff of dynamic typing vs static typing. That part no one can disagree on.
The only disagreeable part I believe I'm saying is where does the dynamic typing scale limit happen. As a polyglot developer, working a lot with junior developers, I can say that dynamic typing hits a scale limit of feature velocity / production support / cost much faster than the general folk are aware of.
there's this common idea in management that new grads, SREs, "less experienced devs", can jump in and contribute. it's a falacy because the code becomes unmaintainable without a large investment (more unittests, refactoring the "buggy" code blocks with mypy type annotations, some SME who continues fixing prod bugs). a Python developer will shove their head in the sand with repl'ing, testing after deploy, and settle with this dev/ex while being completely unaware of the benefits of compiler errors and warnings.
Python has the same level of complexity as another language but you'll only see all of that dirty baggage in production as runtime exceptions.