It's possible that static typing is more useful for larger codebases: it's very hard to tell, since the debate's so polarised, and because of the major complicating factor that different languages take different amounts of space to express the same program, in a way that's a nonlinear function of program size. On the other hand, people have successfully written large projects in dynamic languages (Steve Yegge was talking about his 10,000-line Emacs extension (http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/03/js2-mode-new-javascript-mode-for-emacs.html) today, and mentioned other extensions three times the size - and that's an extension to Emacs!).
I think the hard part of the adjustment is probably realising that there's an adjustment to be made - after that, it's just conscious practice.
no subject
It's possible that static typing is more useful for larger codebases: it's very hard to tell, since the debate's so polarised, and because of the major complicating factor that different languages take different amounts of space to express the same program, in a way that's a nonlinear function of program size. On the other hand, people have successfully written large projects in dynamic languages (Steve Yegge was talking about his 10,000-line Emacs extension (http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/03/js2-mode-new-javascript-mode-for-emacs.html) today, and mentioned other extensions three times the size - and that's an extension to Emacs!).
I think the hard part of the adjustment is probably realising that there's an adjustment to be made - after that, it's just conscious practice.