[OT] Static typing and split brains research

[Donn Cave]

In article <4061ca3a$0$124$3a628fcd at reader3.nntp.hccnet.nl>,
 anton at vredegoor.doge.nl (Anton Vredegoor) wrote:
...
> So after this long intro I would like to make the link to programmers
> that are using some kind of programming language and getting results
> consistent with their world view. Once one has decided that static
> typing is necessary and accordingly uses a statically typed language
> the brain just fills in the details and the programmer lives in a
> consistent world. The same goes for dynamically typed languages of
> course.
> 
> Now imagine a situation where ones job is dependent on "believing" in
> some kind of information technology infrastructure. Now we don't even
> have the option to believe otherwise, because it would damage our
> career opportunities.
> 
> In these circumstances it is incredibly hard to gather scientific
> evidence about programmer productivity as correlated to the use of
> certain programming languages. But at least we now have begun to
> understand *why* that is so hard. I hope someone fills in the blanks
> of this theory :-)

Bah.  I think most of the venom with which people here reject
static typing comes from experience with it - either in school
or at work.  Personally, my enthusiasm for it comes from using
Python for approximately a decade.  Experience with one may as
easily lead to a preference for the other.  But not necessarily -
experience affects the outcome, but personality, strengths and
weaknesses inherent in the individual play a role.

And the terms "static typing" and "dynamic typing" are part of
the problem.  Better say "Java typing", "Hindley-Milner typing"
(ML, Haskell), "Python typing", "Perl typing", etc.  One reason
there is so little agreement on these matters is that we mean
different things by the same phrase.

   Donn Cave, donn at u.washington.edu