With a static language, you get more with less. If you didn't have any testing framework, the compiler would tell you where you messed up. So, there's that, barring "well you should have had testing code to begin with".
Grepping is ghetto, second-class. Whereas an IDE with built-in refactorings has a much higher guarantee of hitting the right artifacts, especially with shared substring collision. Again, barring "well you should have named things better".
Having spent the majority of my career as dynamic and now a recent convert to static, I fail to see the allure of dynamic languages at a certain scale. You can shoot yourself in any language, but I think it is easier and safer to crawl out of a static mess than it is a dynamic one.
And, I would argue the majority of applications do not demand the level of dynamism that dynamic languages are capable of, making it a waste.
> Grepping is ghetto, second-class. Whereas an IDE with built-in refactorings has a much higher guarantee of hitting the right artifacts, especially with shared substring collision.
Of course that only works when the tooling exists, which for instance it does not for Go but does for Python. Doesn't for Haskell but does for Ruby (Jetbrains has done a pretty good job there).
Grepping is ghetto, second-class. Whereas an IDE with built-in refactorings has a much higher guarantee of hitting the right artifacts, especially with shared substring collision. Again, barring "well you should have named things better".
Having spent the majority of my career as dynamic and now a recent convert to static, I fail to see the allure of dynamic languages at a certain scale. You can shoot yourself in any language, but I think it is easier and safer to crawl out of a static mess than it is a dynamic one.
And, I would argue the majority of applications do not demand the level of dynamism that dynamic languages are capable of, making it a waste.