If you followed the few (or a dozen) of my recent posts, you’ve probably noticed a sizable bias in the choice of topics. The vast majority were about Rust — a native, bare metal, statically typed language with powerful compile time semantics but little in the way of runtime flexibility.

Needless to say, Rust is radically different than (almost the exact opposite of) Python, the other language that I’m covering sometimes. Considering this topical shift, it would fair to assume that I, too, have subscribed to the whole Static Typing™ trend.

But that wouldn’t be very accurate.

Don’t get me wrong. As far as fashion cycles in the software industry go, the current trend towards static/compiled languages is difficult to disparage. Strong in both hype and merit, it has given us some really innovative & promising solutions (as well as some not-so-innovative ones) that are poised to shape the future of programming for years, if not decades to come. In many ways, it is also correcting mistakes of the previous generation: excessive boilerplate, byzantine abstractions, and software bloat.

What about dynamic languages, then? Are they slowly going the way of the dodo?

Trigger warning: TypeError

Some programmers would certainly wish so.

Indeed, it’s not hard at all to find articles and opinions about dynamic languages that are, well, less than flattering.

The common argument echoed in those accounts points to supposed unsuitability of Python et al. for any large, multi-person project. The reasoning can be summed up as “good for small scripts and not much else”. Without statically checked types, the argument goes, anything bigger than a quick hack or a prototype shall inevitably become hairy and dangerous monstrosity.

And when that happens, a single typo can go unchecked and bring down the entire system!…

At the very end of this spectrum of beliefs, some pundits may eventually make the leap from languages to people. If dynamically typed languages (or “untyped” ones, as they’re often mislabeled) are letting even trivial bugs through, then obviously anyone who wants to use them is dangerously irresponsible. It must follow that all they really want is to hack up some shoddy code, yolo it over to production, and let others worry about the consequences.

Mind the gap

It’s likely unproductive to engage with someone who’s that extreme. If the rhetoric is dialed down, however, we can definitely find the edge of reason.

In my opinion, this fine line goes right through the “good in small quantities” argument. I can certainly understand the apprehension towards large projects that utilize dynamically typed languages throughout their codebases. The prospect of such a project is scary, because it contains an additional element of uncertainty. More so than with many other technologies, you ought to know what you’re doing.

Some people (and teams) do. Others, not so much.

I would therefore refine the argument so that it better reflects the strengths and weaknesses of dynamic languages. They are perfectly suited for at least the following cases:

• anyone writing small, standalone applications or scripts
• any project (large or small) with a well-functioning team of talented individuals

The sad reality of the software industry is the vast, gaping chasm of calamity and despair that stretches between those two scenarios.

Within lies the bulk of commercial software projects, consistently hamstrung by the usual suspects: incompetent management, unclear and shifting requirements, under- or overstaffing, ancient development practices, lack of coding standards, rampant bureaucracy, inexperienced developers, and so on.

In such an environment, it becomes nigh impossible to capitalize on the strengths of dynamic languages. Instead, the main priority is to protect from even further productivity losses, which is what bog-standard languages like Java, C#, or Go tend to be pretty good at. Rather than to move fast, the objective is to remain moving at all.

Freedom of choice

“But that’s backwards”, the usual retort goes. “Static typing and compilation checks are what enables me to be productive!”

I have no doubt that most people saying this do indeed believe they’re better off programming in static languages. Regardless of what they think, however, there exists no conclusive evidence to back up such claims as a universal rule.

This is of course the perennial problem with software engineering in general, and the project management aspect of it in particular. There is very little proper research on optimal and effective approaches to it, which is why any of the so-called “best practices” are quite likely to stem from unsubstantiated hearsay.

We can lament this state of affairs, of course. But on the other hand, we can also find it liberating. In the absence of rigid prescriptions and judgments about productivity, we are free to explore, within technical limitations, what language works best for us, our team, and our projects.

Sometimes it’ll be Go, Java, Rust, or even Haskell.
A different situation may be best handled by Python, Ruby, or even JavaScript.

As the old adage goes, there is no silver bullet. We should not try to polish static typing into one.

Continue reading