Are there languages with static types that compile to #Python the way #PureScript and #Elm compile to #JavaScript or how #Eta to #JVM or #F♯ to .NET CLR?
@22 What's the benefit? I generally use static typed languages for system programming, if performance matters. If performance is neglectable I use a programmer-friendly (dynamic typed) language. Why would I expose myself to the hassle of static typing, if the code finally gets translated to something closer to natural language?
@stefan I think many programmers use static types to manage complexity and aid abstraction, and not (mainly) for performance. Consider the TypeScript compiler which strips type information during codegen—types are only used up to compile-time, as programmer aids (maybe there's some optimizations that are enabled but I haven't seen any in my emitted code). Static typing my webapps and data analysis scripts makes refactoring and extending much easier than if dynamic. Does that explain my angle?
@wim_v12e @stefan Atom has absolutely superb support for Elm and Rust, and Haskell too! (I used the IHaskell Jupyter kernel with the Hydrogen Atom plugin.) See screenshots at
https://twitter.com/gratidue/status/812519548100476928
Yes, I should be clear that in my mind "a language" is the whole experience—Elm and Rust are new and very focused on "DX" (developer experience), but Haskell also gave me great feedback about what was wrong with my code and how to make it better. I will do more Haskell/PureScript someday for sure.