Re: [OT] Interesting answer to why dynamic languages are hard for large code bases

[Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@...>]

On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Marc Balmer <marc@msys.ch> wrote:

Am 01.07.2014 um 15:08 schrieb Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@trms.com>:

http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/221615/why-do-dynamic-languages-make-it-more-difficult-to-maintain-large-codebases

Told from the perspective of _javascript_, but most of it applies to Lua, as well.

Our own software proves him wrong.  Dynamic languages are very well manageable, also with large codebases.

I was hoping that someone would say something like this. I think that he admits that there are large projects built on dynamic software, but that it is more expensive / takes more work.

But that's not the interesting point, as it relates to Lua. I'm wondering if the direct C<->Lua link makes projects fundamentally different than the HTML(UI) <->_javascript_<->Server,

At first, it seems totally different. But considering that there is an enforced separation of concerns, perhaps not.

And then there was the interesting tidbits about jscript/_javascript_s design goals. I found that very interesting, too.

-Andrew