Yes the compiler/interpreter can figure it out on the fly, that's what we mean by untyped languages. And as stated both have their merits and their faults.

Elon doesn't know what the words mean and just chimes in with his AI future BS.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 95 points 10 months ago (9 children)

And as stated both have their merits and their faults.

Yes! Just because a compiler could guess the type doesn't mean it should. Elon didn't understand the meme at all.

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 2 points 10 months ago (8 children)

why would you not want it to? what circumstance, other than an integer not given an explicit type, could it guess wrong?

[–] RepulsiveDog4415@feddit.de 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well, if there is nof fixed (explicit or implicit) type it's imposible for the compiler to optimise your code. Also imho programming with typed languages is way easier because your IDE can recognize function argumentd before you compile/run. I tried python and found it baffling how anyone can get any work done with it :D

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 2 points 10 months ago

I used Python almost exclusively before I learned Rust and inevitably became a full time Rust bro, and the answer is "slowly and with a lot of crashes" :P

anyway, as I said in another comment, I'm not talking about static vs dynamic typing, I'm talking about static typing with vs without a compiler that can do type inference. C++'s auto will default to floats if you don't tell it the type of a number which is pretty brain dead, and there are scenarios where it's helpful to write out a type that could be inferred for readability/guaranteed correctness's sake, but apart from that I can't think why having most of your types be implicit would be bad

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (35 replies)