> 1. A common argument is that static-typed languages slow development. I'm not touching that land-mine.
If you claim type-checking is free, the counter-argument is not that it "slows development." The counter is that type-checking is not free because it incurs measurable costs. You may sacrifice dynamic features, you may have to add declarations and type casts-- these are all costs whether they "slow development" or not.
(Simple solution: don't waste time trying to claim type-checking is free and just focus on the benefits.)
I would feel bad editing my comment now that you've replied, but my original intent was to say that type-checking is "free." At some point the quotes were lost.
To get as close to the land-mine as I am willing: I like C. I like Python. I like Ruby. But most of all, I like using the right tool for the job.
But you have to use a language with type inference. That's still a cost. Maybe not a big one, but that was my point (and I'm definitely nitpicking a bit, I realize that.)
True, but free usually means freedom from both cost and restraint, so the point doesn't change much. I should have said "constraint" rather than "cost".
Though the original commenter did follow-up, clarifying that the common interpretation of "free" doesn't closely match the point he'd intended to make
If you claim type-checking is free, the counter-argument is not that it "slows development." The counter is that type-checking is not free because it incurs measurable costs. You may sacrifice dynamic features, you may have to add declarations and type casts-- these are all costs whether they "slow development" or not.
(Simple solution: don't waste time trying to claim type-checking is free and just focus on the benefits.)