No, dynamic type systems are not inherently more open

Internet debates about typing disciplines continue to be plagued by a pervasive myth that dynamic type systems are inherently better at modeling “open world” domains. The argument usually goes like this: the goal of static typing is to pin everything down as much as possible, but in the real world, that just isn’t practical. Real systems should be loosely coupled and worry about data representation as little as possible, so dynamic types lead to a more robust system in the large.

Internet debates about typing disciplines continue to be plagued by a pervasive myth that dynamic type systems are inherently better at modeling “open world” domains. The argument usually goes like this: the goal of static typing is to pin everything down as much as possible, but in the real world, that just isn’t practical. Real systems should be loosely coupled and worry about data representation as little as possible, so dynamic types lead to a more robust system in the large. This story sounds compelling, but it isn’t true. The flaw is in the premise: static types are not about “classifyin

saved by

• João Araújo

related reading

• Everything I know about good system designseangoedecke.com
• Parse, don’t validatelexi-lambda.github.io
• "We're building a new static type checker for Python" | Hacker Newsnews.ycombinator.com
• Wesley Aptekar-Cassels | There is no such thing as a static websiteblog.wesleyac.com
• Type system - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org
• TypeScript: Documentation - The Basicstypescriptlang.org
• lecture10web.stanford.edu
• Closed Worlds and Open Worlds – Sturdy Statisticsblog.sturdystatistics.com
• "Why don't you use dependent types?"lawrencecpaulson.github.io
• Type theory - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org
• Static typing - Glossary | MDNdeveloper.mozilla.org
• Leaving Haskell behind - Infinite Negative Utilityjournal.infinitenegativeutility.com