16:19 <discocaml> <barconstruction> I work in data science and we use Python and R for pretty much everything. I am personally much more sympathetic to statically typed functional programming languages like Ocaml over interpreted scripting languages. I think I would have better quality of life as a programmer using something closer to Ocaml. I am thinking about discussing with my colleagues/manager the idea of doing a test project in Ocaml to showcase the benefits of an

16:19 <discocaml> <barconstruction>

16:19 <discocaml> <barconstruction> I have a handful of personal arguments I can articulate for the benefits of statically typed functional languages over dynamically typed but it would be helpful to have a clear argument or manifesto which argues toward the benefits of one or the other. I am looking for an apologia for statically typed functional programming languages which is rigorous, nuanced and free of bombastic rhetoric.

16:25 <discocaml> <barconstruction> I work in data science and we use Python and R for pretty much everything. I am personally much more sympathetic to statically typed functional programming languages like Ocaml over interpreted scripting languages. I think I would have better quality of life as a programmer using something closer to Ocaml. I am thinking about discussing with my colleagues/manager the idea of doing a test project in Ocaml to showcase the benefits of an

16:25 <discocaml> <barconstruction>

16:25 <discocaml> <barconstruction> I have a handful of personal arguments I can articulate for the benefits of statically typed functional languages over dynamically typed but it would be helpful to have a clear argument or manifesto which argues toward the benefits of one over the other. I am looking for an apologia for statically typed functional programming languages which is rigorous, nuanced and free of bombastic rhetoric.

16:36 <discocaml> <barconstruction> I would also be interested in having a debate about the relative gains, costs and tradeoffs of these two very different languages. I could play devil's advocate for Python.

16:36 <discocaml> <barconstruction>

16:36 <discocaml> <barconstruction> I am sure that the arguments between static and dynamic typing are something everyone has participated in so much as to be sick of them, so I appreciate your patience.

17:04 <discocaml> <Ada> at least for python you can argue the layer of abstraction that comes from having most libraries be c wrappers

17:12 <discocaml> <barconstruction> "argue the layer of abstraction" - Can you rephrase this? I don't understand what you mean.

17:12 <discocaml> <jumpnbrownweasel> I've noticed that people who prefer dynamic typing can't be convinced that static typing has big advantages until they try it for a while and experience the benefits first hand. So I'm not sure how reading a manifesto will help. The short answer is that it catches lots of errors at compile time, meaning that testing can focus on other types of errors. There is not much more to it.

17:12 <discocaml> <jumpnbrownweasel>

17:12 <discocaml> <jumpnbrownweasel> This might be better in #offtopic🎲 .

17:14 <discocaml> <barconstruction> I will move to #offtopic🎲 then, thank you.