编程世界里持续时间最长的分裂之一，就是静态类型 vs 动态类型。在我整个职业生涯中，我听过来自双方的无数论战，但真正被说服的人却寥寥无几。因为在“信仰之争”中，披着理性外衣的合理化解释，很少真的改变任何人。骑手永远会为大象选择的道路辩护。 这并不是说没有人“改宗”。恰恰相反，这些人往往喊得最响，给出的合理化理由也最激烈。那种热情，就像一个终生的杂食者突然改吃纯素，或者一个传统银行家因为踩中一波加密行情而激情布道一样。信仰越短，火焰越旺。 就我个人而言，我毫不掩饰自己是动态类型阵营的人。这也是为什么我如此热爱 Ruby。它充分利用了动态类型的优势，成就了那种诗意的语法，写出来的代码就是漂亮。在我看来，给 Ruby 加上显式的静态类型，就像给一份沙拉挖一勺冰淇淋——它们根本不搭。 我也承认，过去我曾经站在“动态类型福音派”的位置上，甚至患上了“唯一正确命题综合征”。把别人对动态类型的冷淡，视为教育不足、经验不足，甚至能力不足的体现。 多么愚蠢啊。 这就像试图说服一个内向者：只要你放开一点，其实你会喜欢聚会的。真的，在拥挤的房间里一待就是好几个小时，为了交流而大声喊叫，多有意思啊！看看这氛围（VIBE）！ 这些年，我逐渐学会欣赏多样性的壮丽。如果所有程序员都被限制在同一种范式里，编程将会是一件多么可怕的事情。人类的天性如此多样，根本无法接受对创造力施加这样的束缚。 你能想象吗？如果所有视觉艺术都必须用立体主义来表现？或者只能写写实主义？或者所有小说都必须采用海明威那种简短、直接的风格？那将会多么迅速地让人厌倦！ 那会彻底毁掉编程的魔力——这种艺术与工程的独特融合。 不过，我花了很长时间才得出这些结论。我是一个“康复中的解决方案至上主义者”。所以，当我看到有人捂着胸口、满脸不可思议地问：怎么可能会有人在任何地方更喜欢 JavaScript 而不是 TypeScript？我会会心一笑，想起曾经在镜子里看到的那份狂热。 这并不是说，所有编程方法的分歧都只是“不同但平等的心态”。相对主义当然有边界。但动态 vs 静态类型显然就在这个边界之内；函数式 vs 面向对象也是如此。过去几十年里，这两个轴线两端都孕育出了极其优秀的软件（当然，也产生过糟糕透顶的东西）。 如今，人们被赋予了一种祝福：无论站在哪一端，都能同样出色地表达自己。但这种“左右开弓”的能力似乎相当罕见——否则也不会经常看到双方对“对方的立场竟然也可能合理”表现出如此强烈的震惊。 我并不是左右开弓的人。我不喜欢静态类型，对象模型能点燃我的想象力。但我已经学会欣赏这样一个事实：其他人也能用同样的热情点亮自己的创造力——通过函数式编程的约束，以及清清楚楚写明的类型系统。 只要我永远不必给 Ruby “玷污”上类型提示，也不必把所有前端代码都写成 TypeScript，我就能非常愉快地与那些热爱 Go、或者讨厌 JavaScript 的人共存。差异万岁！（Vive la différence!） One of the longest running schisms in programming is that of static vs dynamic typing. I've heard a million arguments from both sides throughout my entire career, but seen very few of them ever convinced anyone of anything. As rationalizations masquerading as reason rarely do in matters of faith. The rider will always justify the way of the elephant. That's not to say there aren't people who've switched camps. In fact, such individuals usually shout the loudest rationalizations of all. Often with the charm of a livelong omnivore suddenly turning vegan or a traditional banker who caught a lucky ride on crypto. The shorter the faith, the brighter the flame. Personally, I'm unashamedly a dynamic typing kind of guy. That's why I love Ruby so very much. It takes full advantage of dynamic typing to allow the poetic syntax that results in such beautiful code. To me, Ruby with explicit, static typing would be like a salad with a scoop of ice cream. They just don't go together. I'll also confess to having embraced the evangelical position for dynamic typing in the past. To the point of suffering from a One True Proposition affliction. Seeing the lack of enthusiasm for dynamic typing as a reflection of missing education, experience, or perhaps even competence. Oh what folly. Like trying to convince an introvert that they'd really like parties if they'd just loosen up a bit. That actually it's really fun to be in crowded rooms, for hours on end, shouting to communicate, because how about that VIBE! These days, I've come to appreciate the magnificence of multiplicity. Programming would be an awful endeavor if we were all confined to the same paradigm. Human nature is much too varied to accept such constraint on its creativity. Could you imagine if all visual art had to be rendered in the style of cubism? Or realism? Or all novels written in the short, direct flavor of Hemmingway? What a bore it would all quickly be! It would ruin the magic of programming. This unique fusion of art and engineering. But it took a while for me to come to these conclusions. I'm a recovering solutionist. So when I see folks cross their heart in disbelief that anyone, anywhere might fancy JavaScript over TypeScript, I smile, and I remember the days when I'd recognize their zeal in the mirror. That's not to say all matters of programming approaches boil down to equal but different mindsets. There are limits to this relativism. But dynamic vs static typing is certain within its confines. So too is functional vs object-oriented programming. Poles on both these axes have shown to deliver excellent software over the decades (and awful stuff too!). Now people are blessed with a capacity to express themselves equally well from either end. Such ambidextrous nature seems rare, though, as evidenced by the utter disbelief so frequently expressed by either side that the other might hold a reasonable position. I am not ambidextrous. I do not enjoy static typing, and objects animate my mind's eye. But I have come to appreciate the fact that others illuminate their creativity with just as much intensity as I do mine, using functional programming constraints and explicitly spelled out types. As long as I never have to soil my Ruby with type hints or write all front-end code in TypeScript, I can so happily coexist with those who adore Go or can't stand JavaScript. Vive la différence!