Timeline for Why do dynamic languages make it more difficult to maintain large codebases?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SMay 10, 2016 at 23:02 | history | suggested | luser droog | CC BY-SA 3.0 | replace french word with english word |
| May 10, 2016 at 21:49 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| SMay 10, 2016 at 23:02 | |||||
| Dec 17, 2013 at 16:07 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | “all type errors you encounter when working on the program would correspond to a runtime failure”: this isn't true (which is a big argument of dynamic typing proponents). However, if there would be no runtime failure, this is for a nonobvious reason that needs to be documented. Rather than document in the form of a comment, you might as well document it in a way the compiler understands and checks. I would say that all type errors you encounter when working on the program would correspond to a runtime failure or maintenance nightmare. | |
| Dec 17, 2013 at 14:14 | history | answered | user40989 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
