What is the worst programming language you ever worked with? [closed]

What is the worst programming language you ever worked with? [closed] - programming-languages

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 13 years ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
If you have an interesting story to
share, please post an answer, but
do not abuse this question for bashing
a language.
We are programmers, and our primary tool is the programming language we use.
While there is a lot of discussion about the best one, I'd like to hear your stories about
the worst programming languages you ever worked with and I'd like to know exactly what annoyed you.
I'd like to collect this stories partly to avoid common pitfalls while designing a language (especially a DSL) and partly to avoid quirky languages in the future in general.
This question is not subjective. If a language supports only single character identifiers (see my own answer) this is bad in a non-debatable way.
EDIT
Some people have raised concerns that this question attracts trolls.
Wading through all your answers made one thing clear.
The large majority of answers is appropriate, useful and well written.
UPDATE 2009-07-01 19:15 GMT
The language overview is now complete, covering 103 different languages from 102 answers.
I decided to be lax about what counts as a programming language and included
anything reasonable. Thank you David for your comments on this.
Here are all programming languages covered so far
(alphabetical order, linked with answer, new entries in bold):
ABAP,
all 20th century languages,
all drag and drop languages,
all proprietary languages,
APF,
APL
(1),
AS400,
Authorware,
Autohotkey,
BancaStar,
BASIC,
Bourne Shell,
Brainfuck,
C++,
Centura Team Developer,
Cobol
(1),
Cold Fusion,
Coldfusion,
CRM114,
Crystal Syntax,
CSS,
Dataflex 2.3,
DB/c DX,
dbase II,
DCL,
Delphi IDE,
Doors DXL,
DOS batch
(1),
Excel Macro language,
FileMaker,
FOCUS,
Forth,
FORTRAN,
FORTRAN 77,
HTML,
Illustra web blade,
Informix 4th Generation Language,
Informix Universal Server web blade,
INTERCAL,
Java,
JavaScript
(1),
JCL
(1),
karol,
LabTalk,
Labview,
Lingo,
LISP,
Logo,
LOLCODE,
LotusScript,
m4,
Magic II,
Makefiles,
MapBasic,
MaxScript,
Meditech Magic,
MEL,
mIRC Script,
MS Access,
MUMPS,
Oberon,
object extensions to C,
Objective-C,
OPS5,
Oz,
Perl
(1),
PHP,
PL/SQL,
PowerDynamo,
PROGRESS 4GL,
prova,
PS-FOCUS,
Python,
Regular Expressions,
RPG,
RPG II,
Scheme,
ScriptMaker,
sendmail.conf,
Smalltalk,
Smalltalk ,
SNOBOL,
SpeedScript,
Sybase PowerBuilder,
Symbian C++,
System RPL,
TCL,
TECO,
The Visual Software Environment,
Tiny praat,
TransCAD,
troff,
uBasic,
VB6
(1),
VBScript
(1),
VDF4,
Vimscript,
Visual Basic
(1),
Visual C++,
Visual Foxpro,
VSE,
Webspeed,
XSLT
The answers covering 80386 assembler, VB6 and VBScript have been removed.

PHP (In no particular order)
Inconsistent function names and argument orders
Because there are a zillion functions, each one of which seems to use a different naming convention and argument order. "Lets see... is it foo_bar or foobar or fooBar... and is it needle, haystack or haystack, needle?" The PHP string functions are a perfect example of this. Half of them use str_foo and the other half use strfoo.
Non-standard date format characters
Take j for example
In UNIX (which, by the way, is what everyone else uses as a guide for date string formats) %j returns the day of the year with leading zeros.
In PHP's date function j returns the day of the month without leading zeros.
Still No Support for Apache 2.0 MPM
It's not recommended.
Why isn't this supported? "When you make the underlying framework more complex by not having completely separate execution threads, completely separate memory segments and a strong sandbox for each request to play in, feet of clay are introduced into PHP's system." Link So... it's not supported 'cause it makes things harder? 'Cause only the things that are easy are worth doing right? (To be fair, as Emil H pointed out, this is generally attributed to bad 3rd-party libs not being thread-safe, whereas the core of PHP is.)
No native Unicode support
Native Unicode support is slated for PHP6
I'm sure glad that we haven't lived in a global environment where we might have need to speak to people in other languages for the past, oh 18 years. Oh wait. (To be fair, the fact that everything doesn't use Unicode in this day and age really annoys me. My point is I shouldn't have to do any extra work to make Unicode happen. This isn't only a PHP problem.)
I have other beefs with the language. These are just some.
Jeff Atwood has an old post about why PHP sucks. He also says it doesn't matter. I don't agree but there we are.

XSLT.
XSLT is baffling, to begin with. The metaphor is completely different from anything else I know.
The thing was designed by a committee so deep in angle brackets that it comes off as a bizarre frankenstein.
The weird incantations required to specify the output format.
The built-in, invisible rules.
The odd bolt-on stuff, like scripts.
The dependency on XPath.
The tools support has been pretty slim, until lately. Debugging XSLT in the early days was an exercise in navigating in complete darkness. The tools change that but, still XSLT tops my list.
XSLT is weird enough that most people just ignore it. If you must use it, you need an XSLT Shaman to give you the magic incantations to make things go.

DOS Batch files. Not sure if this qualifies as programming language at all.
It's not that you can't solve your problems, but if you are used to bash...
Just my two cents.

Not sure if its a true language, but I hate Makefiles.
Makefiles have meaningful differences between space and TAB, so even if two lines appear identical, they do not run the same.
Make also relies on a complex set of implicit rules for many languages, which are difficult to learn, but then are frequently overridden by the make file.
A Makefile system is typically spread over many, many files, across many directories.
With virtually no scoping or abstraction, a change to a make file several directories away can prevent my source from building. Yet the error message is invariably a compliation error, not a meaningful error about make, or the makefiles.
Any environment I've worked in that uses makefiles successfully has a full-time Make expert. And all this to shave a few minutes off compilation??

The worse language I've ever seen come from the tool praat, which is a good audio analysis tool. It does a pretty good job until you use the script language. sigh bad memories.
Tiny praat script tutorial for beginners
Function call
We've listed at least 3 different function calling syntax :
The regular one
string = selected("Strings")
Nothing special here, you assign to the variable string the result of the selected function. Not really scary... yet.
The "I'm invoking some GUI command with parameters"
Create Strings as file list... liste 'path$'/'type$'
As you can see, the function name start at "Create" and finish with the "...". The command "Create Strings as file list" is the text displayed on a button or a menu (I'm to scared to check) on praat. This command take 2 parameters liste and an expression. I'm going to look deeper in the expression 'path$'/'type$'
Hmm. Yep. No spaces. If spaces were introduced, it would be separate arguments. As you can imagine, parenthesis don't work. At this point of the description I would like to point out the suffix of the variable names. I won't develop it in this paragraph, I'm just teasing.
The "Oh, but I want to get the result of the GUI command in my variable"
noliftt = Get number of strings
Yes we can see a pattern here, long and weird function name, it must be a GUI calling. But there's no '...' so no parameters. I don't want to see what the parser looks like.
The incredible type system (AKA Haskell and OCaml, praat is coming to you)
Simple natives types
windowname$ = left$(line$,length(line$)-4)
So, what's going on there?
It's now time to look at the convention and types of expression, so here we got :
left$ :: (String, Int) -> String
lenght :: (String) -> Int
windowname$ :: String
line$ :: String
As you can see, variable name and function names are suffixed with their type or return type. If their suffix is a '$', then it return a string or is a string. If there is nothing it's a number. I can see the point of prefixing the type to a variable to ease implementation, but to suffix, no sorry, I can't
Array type
To show the array type, let me introduce a 'tiny' loop :
for i from 1 to 4
Select... time time
bandwidth'i'$ = Get bandwidth... i
forhertz'i'$ = Get formant... i
endfor
We got i which is a number and... (no it's not a function)
bandwidth'i'$
What it does is create string variables : bandwidth1$, bandwidth2$, bandwidth3$, bandwidth4$ and give them values. As you can expect, you can't create two dimensional array this way, you must do something like that :
band2D__'i'__'j'$
The special string invocation
outline$ = "'time'#F'i':'forhertznum'Hz,'bandnum'Hz, 'spec''newline$'"
outline$ >> 'outfile$'
Strings are weirdly (at least) handled in the language. the '' is used to call the value of a variable inside the global "" string. This is _weird_. It goes against all the convention built into many languages from bash to PHP passing by the powershell. And look, it even got redirection. Don't be fooled, it doesn't work like in your beloved shell. No you have to get the variable value with the ''
Da Wonderderderfulful execution model
I'm going to put the final touch to this wonderderderfulful presentation by talking to you about the execution model. So as in every procedural languages you got instruction executed from top to bottom, there is the variables and the praat GUI. That is you code everything on the praat gui, you invoke commands written on menu/buttons.
The main window of praat contain a list of items which can be :
files
list of files (created by a function with a wonderderfulful long long name)
Spectrogramm
Strings (don't ask)
So if you want to perform operation on a given file, you must select the file in the list programmatically and then push the different buttons to take some actions. If you wanted to pass parameters to a GUI action, you have to follow the GUI layout of the form for your arguments, for example "To Spectrogram... 0.005 5000 0.002 20 Gaussian
" is like that because it follows this layout:
Needless to say, my nightmares are filled with praat scripts dancing around me and shouting "DEBUG MEEEE!!".
More information at the praat site, under the well-named section "easy programmable scripting language"

Well since this question refuses to die and since the OP did prod me into answering...
I humbly proffer for your consideration Authorware (AW) as the worst language it is possible to create. (n.b. I'm going off recollection here, it's been ~6 years since I used AW, which of course means there's a number of awful things I can't even remember)
the horror, the horror http://img.brothersoft.com/screenshots/softimage/a/adobe_authorware-67096-1.jpeg
Let's start with the fact that it's a Macromedia product (-10 points), a proprietary language (-50 more) primarily intended for creating e-learning software and moreover software that could be created by non-programmers and programmers alike implemented as an iconic language AND a text language (-100).
Now if that last statement didn't scare you then you haven't had to fix WYSIWYG generated code before (hello Dreamweaver and Frontpage devs!), but the salient point is that AW had a library of about 12 or so elements which could be dragged into a flow. Like "Page" elements, Animations, IFELSE, and GOTO (-100). Of course removing objects from the flow created any number of broken connections and artifacts which the IDE had variable levels of success coping with. Naturally the built in wizards (-10) were a major source of these.
Fortunately you could always step into a code view, and eventually you'd have to because with a limited set of iconic elements some things just weren't possible otherwise. The language itself was based on TUTOR (-50) - a candidate for worst language itself if only it had the ambition and scope to reach the depths AW would strive for - about which wikipedia says:
...the TUTOR language was not easy to
learn. In fact, it was even suggested
that several years of experience with
the language would be required before
programmers could build programs worth
keeping.
An excellent foundation then, which was built upon in the years before the rise of the internet with exactly nothing. Absolutely no form of data structure beyond an array (-100), certainly no sugar (real men don't use switch statements?) (-10), and a large splash of syntactic vinegar ("--" was the comment indicator so no decrement operator for you!) (-10). Language reference documentation was provided in paper or zip file formats (-100), but at least you had the support of the developer run usegroup and could quickly establish the solution to your problem was to use the DLL or SWF importing features of AW to enable you to do the actual coding in a real language.
AW was driven by a flow (with necessary PAUSE commands) and therefore has all the attendant problems of a linear rather than event based system (-50), and despite the outright marketing lies of the documentation it was not object oriented (-50) either. All code reuse was achieved through GOTO. No scope, lots of globals (-50).
It's not the language's fault directly, but obviously no source control integration was possible, and certainly no TDD, documentation generation or any other add-on tool you might like.
Of course Macromedia met the challenge of the internet head on with a stubborn refusal to engage for years, eventually producing the buggy, hard to use, security nightmare which is Shockwave (-100) to essentially serialise desktop versions of the software through a required plugin (-10). AS HTML rose so did AW stagnate, still persisting with it's shockwave delivery even in the face of IEEE SCORM javascript standards.
Ultimately after years of begging and promises Macromedia announced a radical new version of AW in development to address these issues, and a few years later offshored the development and then cancelled the project. Although of course Macromedia are still selling it (EVIL BONUS -500).
If anything else needs to be said, this is the language which allows spaces in variable names (-10000).
If you ever want to experience true pain, try reading somebody else's uncommented hungarian notation in a language which isn't case sensitive and allows variable name spaces.
Total Annakata Arbitrary Score (AAS): -11300
Adjusted for personal experience: OutOfRangeException
(apologies for length, but it was cathartic)

Seriously: Perl.
It's just a pain in the ass to code with for beginners and even for semi-professionals which work with perl on a daily basis. I can constantly see my colleagues struggle with the language, building the worst scripts, like 2000 lines with no regard of any well accepted coding standard. It's the worst mess i've ever seen in programming.
Now, you can always say, that those people are bad in coding (despite the fact that some of them have used perl for a lot of years, now), but the language just encourages all that freaking shit that makes me scream when i have to read a script by some other guy.

MS Access Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) was also pretty bad. Access was bad altogether in that it forced you down a weak paradigm and was deceptively simple to get started, but a nightmare to finish.

No answer about Cobol yet? :O

Old-skool BASICs with line numbers would be my choice. When you had no space between line numbers to add new lines, you had to run a renumber utility, which caused you to lose any mental anchors you had to what was where.
As a result, you ended up squeezing in too many statements on a single line (separated by colons), or you did a goto or gosub somewhere else to do the work you couldn't cram in.

MUMPS
I worked in it for a couple years, but have done a complete brain dump since then. All I can really remember was no documentation (at my location) and cryptic commands.
It was horrible. Horrible! HORRIBLE!!!

There are just two kinds of languages: the ones everybody complains about and the ones nobody uses.
Bjarne Stroustrup

I haven't yet worked with many languages and deal mostly with scripting languages; out of these VBScript is the one I like least. Although it has some handy features, some things really piss me off:
Object assignments are made using the Set keyword:
Set foo = Nothing
Omitting Set is one of the most common causes of run-time errors.
No such thing as structured exception handling. Error checking is like this:
On Error Resume Next
' Do something
If Err.Number <> 0
' Handle error
Err.Clear
End If
' And so on
Enclosing the procedure call parameters in parentheses requires using the Call keyword:
Call Foo (a, b)
Its English-like syntax is way too verbose. (I'm a fan of curly braces.)
Logical operators are long-circuit. If you need to test a compound condition where the subsequent condition relies on the success of the previous one, you need to put conditions into separate If statements.
Lack of parameterized class constructors.
To wrap a statement into several lines, you have to use an underscore:
str = "Hello, " & _
"world!"
Lack of multiline comments.
Edit: found this article: The Flangy Guide to Hating VBScript. The author sums up his complaints as "VBS isn't Python" :)

Objective-C.
The annotations are confusing, using brackets to call methods still does not compute in my brain, and what is worse is that all of the library functions from C are called using the standard operators in C, -> and ., and it seems like the only company that is driving this language is Apple.
I admit I have only used the language when programming for the iPhone (and looking into programming for OS X), but it feels as if C++ were merely forked, adding in annotations and forcing the implementation and the header files to be separate would make much more sense.

PROGRESS 4GL (apparently now known as "OpenEdge Advanced Business Language").
PROGRESS is both a language and a database system. The whole language is designed to make it easy to write crappy green-screen data-entry screens. (So start by imagining how well this translates to Windows.) Anything fancier than that, whether pretty screens, program logic, or batch processing... not so much.
I last used version 7, back in the late '90s, so it's vaguely possible that some of this is out-of-date, but I wouldn't bet on it.
It was originally designed for text-mode data-entry screens, so on Windows, all screen coordinates are in "character" units, which are some weird number of pixels wide and a different number of pixels high. But of course they default to a proportional font, so the number of "character units" doesn't correspond to the actual number of characters that will fit in a given space.
No classes or objects.
No language support for arrays or dynamic memory allocation. If you want something resembling an array, you create a temporary in-memory database table, define its schema, and then get a cursor on it. (I saw a bit of code from a later version, where they actually built and shipped a primitive object-oriented system on top of these in-memory tables. Scary.)
ISAM database access is built in. (But not SQL. Who needs it?) If you want to increment the Counter field in the current record in the State table, you just say State.Counter = State.Counter + 1. Which isn't so bad, except...
When you use a table directly in code, then behind the scenes, they create something resembling an invisible, magic local variable to hold the current cursor position in that table. They guess at which containing block this cursor will be scoped to. If you're not careful, your cursor will vanish when you exit a block, and reset itself later, with no warning. Or you'll start working with a table and find that you're not starting at the first record, because you're reusing the cursor from some other block (or even your own, because your scope was expanded when you didn't expect it).
Transactions operate on these wild-guess scopes. Are we having fun yet?
Everything can be abbreviated. For some of the offensively long keywords, this might not seem so bad at first. But if you have a variable named Index, you can refer to it as Index or as Ind or even as I. (Typos can have very interesting results.) And if you want to access a database field, not only can you abbreviate the field name, but you don't even have to qualify it with the table name; they'll guess the table too. For truly frightening results, combine this with:
Unless otherwise specified, they assume everything is a database access. If you access a variable you haven't declared yet (or, more likely, if you mistype the variable name), there's no compiler error: instead, it goes looking for a database field with that name... or a field that abbreviates to that name.
The guessing is the worst. Between the abbreviations and the field-by-default, you could get some nasty stuff if you weren't careful. (Forgot to declare I as a local variable before using it as a loop variable? No problem, we'll just randomly pick a table, grab its current record, and completely trash an arbitrarily-chosen field whose name starts with I!)
Then add in the fact that an accidental field-by-default access could change the scope it guessed for your tables, thus breaking some completely unrelated piece of code. Fun, yes?
They also have a reporting system built into the language, but I have apparently repressed all memories of it.
When I got another job working with Netscape LiveWire (an ill-fated attempt at server-side JavaScript) and classic ASP (VBScript), I was in heaven.

The worst language? BancStar, hands down.
3,000 predefined variables, all numbered, all global. No variable declaration, no initialization. Half of them, scattered over the range, reserved for system use, but you can use them at your peril. A hundred or so are automatically filled in as a result of various operations, and no list of which ones those are. They all fit in 38k bytes, and there is no protection whatsoever for buffer overflow. The system will cheerfully let users put 20 bytes in a ten byte field if you declared the length of an input field incorrectly. The effects are unpredictable, to say the least.
This is a language that will let you declare a calculated gosub or goto; due to its limitations, this is frequently necessary. Conditionals can be declared forward or reverse. Picture an "If" statement that terminates 20 lines before it begins.
The return stack is very shallow, (20 Gosubs or so) and since a user's press of any function key kicks off a different subroutine, you can overrun the stack easily. The designers thoughtfully included a "Clear Gosubs" command to nuke the stack completely in order to fix that problem and to make sure you would never know exactly what the program would do next.
There is much more. Tens of thousands of lines of this Lovecraftian horror.

The .bat files scripting language on DOS/Windows. God only knows how un-powerful is this one, specially if you compare it to the Unix shell languages (that aren't so powerful either, but way better nonetheless).
Just try to concatenate two strings or make a for loop. Nah.

VSE, The Visual Software Environment.
This is a language that a prof of mine (Dr. Henry Ledgard) tried to sell us on back in undergrad/grad school. (I don't feel bad about giving his name because, as far as I can tell, he's still a big proponent and would welcome the chance to convince some folks it's the best thing since sliced bread). When describing it to people, my best analogy is that it's sort of a bastard child of FORTRAN and COBOL, with some extra bad thrown in. From the only really accessible folder I've found with this material (there's lots more in there that I'm not going to link specifically here):
VSE Overview (pdf)
Chapter 3: The VSE Language (pdf) (Not really an overview of the language at all)
Appendix: On Strings and Characters (pdf)
The Software Survivors (pdf) (Fevered ramblings attempting to justify this turd)
VSE is built around what they call "The Separation Principle". The idea is that Data and Behavior must be completely segregated. Imagine C's requirement that all variables/data must be declared at the beginning of the function, except now move that declaration into a separate file that other functions can use as well. When other functions use it, they're using the same data, not a local copy of data with the same layout.
Why do things this way? We learn that from The Software Survivors that Variable Scope Rules Are Hard. I'd include a quote but, like most fools, it takes these guys forever to say anything. Search that PDF for "Quagmire Of Scope" and you'll discover some true enlightenment.
They go on to claim that this somehow makes it more suitable for multi-proc environments because it more closely models the underlying hardware implementation. Riiiight.
Another choice theme that comes up frequently:
INCREMENT DAY COUNT BY 7 (or DAY COUNT = DAY COUNT + 7)
DECREMENT TOTAL LOSS BY GROUND_LOSS
ADD 100.3 TO TOTAL LOSS(LINK_POINTER)
SET AIRCRAFT STATE TO ON_THE_GROUND
PERCENT BUSY = (TOTAL BUSY CALLS * 100)/TOTAL CALLS
Although not earthshaking, the style
of arithmetic reflects ordinary usage,
i.e., anyone can read and understand
it - without knowing a programming
language. In fact, VisiSoft arithmetic
is virtually identical to FORTRAN,
including embedded complex arithmetic.
This puts programmers concerned with
their professional status and
corresponding job security ill at
ease.
Ummm, not that concerned at all, really. One of the key selling points that Bill Cave uses to try to sell VSE is the democratization of programming so that business people don't need to indenture themselves to programmers who use crazy, arcane tools for the sole purpose of job security. He leverages this irrational fear to sell his tool. (And it works-- the federal gov't is his biggest customer). I counted 17 uses of the phrase "job security" in the document. Examples:
... and fit only for those desiring artificial job security.
More false job security?
Is job security dependent upon ensuring the other guy can't figure out what was done?
Is job security dependent upon complex code...?
One of the strongest forces affecting the acceptance of new technology is the perception of one's job security.
He uses this paranoia to drive wedge between the managers holding the purse strings and the technical people who have the knowledge to recognize VSE for the turd that it is. This is how he squeezes it into companies-- "Your technical people are only saying it sucks because they're afraid it will make them obsolete!"
A few additional choice quotes from the overview documentation:
Another consequence of this approach
is that data is mapped into memory
on a "What You See Is What You Get"
basis, and maintained throughout.
This allows users to move a complete
structure as a string of characters
into a template that descrives each
individual field. Multiple templates
can be redefined for a given storage
area. Unlike C and other languages,
substructures can be moved without the problems of misalignment due to
word boundary alignment standards.
Now, I don't know about you, but I know that a WYSIWYG approach to memory layout is at the top of my priority list when it comes to language choice! Basically, they ignore alignment issues because only old languages that were designed in the '60's and '70's care about word alignment. Or something like that. The reasoning is bogus. It made so little sense to me that I proceeded to forget it almost immediately.
There are no user-defined types in VSE. This is a far-reaching
decision that greatly simplifies the
language. The gain from a practical
point of view is also great. VSE
allows the designer and programmer to
organize a program along the same
lines as a physical system being
modeled. VSE allows structures to be
built in an easy-to-read, logical
attribute hierarchy.
Awesome! User-defined types are lame. Why would I want something like an InputMessage object when I can have:
LINKS_IN_USE INTEGER
INPUT_MESSAGE
1 ORIGIN INTEGER
1 DESTINATION INTEGER
1 MESSAGE
2 MESSAGE_HEADER CHAR 10
2 MESSAGE_BODY CHAR 24
2 MESSAGE_TRAILER CHAR 10
1 ARRIVAL_TIME INTEGER
1 DURATION INTEGER
1 TYPE CHAR 5
OUTPUT_MESSAGE CHARACTER 50
You might look at that and think, "Oh, that's pretty nicely formatted, if a bit old-school." Old-school is right. Whitespace is significant-- very significant. And redundant! The 1's must be in column 3. The 1 indicates that it's at the first level of the hierarchy. The Symbol name must be in column 5. You hierarchies are limited to a depth of 9.
Well, ok, but is that so awful? Just wait:
It is well known that for reading
text, use of conventional upper/lower
case is more readable. VSE uses all
upper case (except for comments). Why?
The literature in psychology is based
on prose. Programs, simply, are not
prose. Programs are more like math,
accounting, tables. Program fonts
(usually Courier) are almost
universally fixed-pitch, and for good
reason – vertical alignment among
related lines of code. Programs in
upper case are nicely readable, and,
after a time, much better in our
opinion
Nothing like enforcing your opinion at the language level! That's right, you cannot use any lower case in VSE unless it's in a comment. Just keep your CAPSLOCK on, it's gonna be stuck there for a while.
VSE subprocedures are called processes. This code sample contains three processes:
PROCESS_MUSIC
EXECUTE INITIALIZE_THE_SCENE
EXECUTE PROCESS_PANEL_WIDGET
INITIALIZE_THE_SCENE
SET TEST_BUTTON PANEL_BUTTON_STATUS TO ON
MOVE ' ' TO TEST_INPUT PANEL_INPUT_TEXT
DISPLAY PANEL PANEL_MUSIC
PROCESS_PANEL_WIDGET
ACCEPT PANEL PANEL_MUSIC
*** CHECK FOR BUTTON CLICK
IF RTG_PANEL_WIDGET_NAME IS EQUAL TO 'TEST_BUTTON'
MOVE 'I LIKE THE BEATLES!' TO TEST_INPUT PANEL_INPUT_TEXT.
DISPLAY PANEL PANEL_MUSIC
All caps as expected. After all, that's easier to read. Note the whitespace. It's significant again. All process names must start in column 0. The initial level of instructions must start on column 4. Deeper levels must be indented exactly 3 spaces. This isn't a big deal, though, because you aren't allowed to do things like nest conditionals. You want a nested conditional? Well just make another process and call it. And note the delicious COBOL-esque syntax!
You want loops? Easy:
EXECUTE NEXT_CALL
EXECUTE NEXT_CALL 5 TIMES
EXECUTE NEXT_CALL TOTAL CALL TIMES
EXECUTE NEXT_CALL UNTIL NO LINES ARE AVAILABLE
EXECUTE NEXT_CALL UNTIL CALLS_ANSWERED ARE EQUAL TO CALLS_WAITING
EXECUTE READ_MESSAGE UNTIL LEAD_CHARACTER IS A DELIMITER
Ugh.

Here is the contribution to my own question:
Origin LabTalk
My all-time favourite in this regard is Origin LabTalk.
In LabTalk the maximum length of a string variable identifier is one character.
That is, there are only 26 string variables at all. Even worse, some of them are used by Origin itself, and it is not clear which ones.
From the manual:
LabTalk uses the % notation to define
a string variable. A legal string
variable name must be a % character
followed by a single alphabetic
character (a letter from A to Z).
String variable names are
caseinsensitive. Of all the 26 string
variables that exist, Origin itself
uses 14.
Doors DXL
For me the second worst in my opinion is Doors DXL.
Programming languages can be divided into two groups:
Those with manual memory management (e.g. delete, free) and those with a garbage collector.
Some languages offer both, but DXL is probably the only language in the world that
supports neither. OK, to be honest this is only true for strings, but hey, strings aren't exactly
the most rarely used data type in requirements engineering software.
The consequence is that memory used by a string can never be reclaimed and
DOORS DXL leaks like sieve.
There are countless other quirks in DXL, just to name a few:
DXL function syntax
DXL arrays

Cold Fusion
I guess it's good for designers but as a programmer I always felt like one hand was tied behind my back.

The worst two languages I've worked with were APL, which is relatively well known for languages of its age, and TECO, the language in which the original Emacs was written. Both are notable for their terse, inscrutable syntax.
APL is an array processing language; it's extremely powerful, but nearly impossible to read, since every character is an operator, and many don't appear on standard keyboards.
TECO had a similar look, and for a similar reason. Most characters are operators, and this special purpose language was devoted to editing text files. It was a little better, since it used the standard character set. And it did have the ability to define functions, which was what gave life to emacs--people wrote macros, and only invoked those after a while. But figuring out what a program did or writing a new one was quite a challenge.

LOLCODE:
HAI
CAN HAS STDIO?
VISIBLE "HAI WORLD!"
KTHXBYE
Seriously, the worst programming language ever is that of Makefiles. Totally incomprehensible, tabs have a syntactic meaning and not even a debugger to find out what's going on.

I'm not sure if you meant to include scripting languages, but I've seen TCL (which is also annoying), but... the mIRC scripting language annoys me to no end.
Because of some oversight in the parsing, it's whitespace significant when it's not supposed to be. Conditional statements will sometimes be executed when they're supposed to be skipped because of this. Opening a block statement cannot be done on a separate line, etc.
Other than that it's just full of messy, inconsistent syntax that was probably designed that way to make very basic stuff easy, but at the same time makes anything a little more complex barely readable.
I lost most of my mIRC scripts, or I could have probably found some good examples of what a horrible mess it forces you to create :(

Regular expressions
It's a write only language, and it's hard to verify if it works correctly for the right inputs.

Visual Foxpro

I can't belive nobody has said this one:
LotusScript
I thinks is far worst than php at least.
Is not about the language itself which follows a syntax similar to Visual Basic, is the fact that it seem to have a lot of functions for extremely unuseful things that you will never (or one in a million times) use, but lack support for things you will use everyday.
I don't remember any concrete example but they were like:
"Ok, I have an event to check whether the mouse pointer is in the upper corner of the form and I don't have an double click event for the Form!!?? WTF??"

Twice I've had to work in 'languages' where you drag-n-dropped modules onto the page and linked them together with lines to show data flow. (One claimed to be a RDBMs, and the other a general purpose data acquisition and number crunching language.)
Just thinking of it makes me what to throttle someone. Or puke. Or both.
Worse, neither exposed a text language that you could hack directly.

I find myself avoid having to use VBScript/Visual Basic 6 the most.
I use primarily C++, javascript, Java for most tasks and dabble in ruby, scala, erlang, python, assembler, perl when the need arises.
I, like most other reasonably minded polyglots/programmers, strongly feel that you have to use the right tool for the job - this requires you to understand your domain and to understand your tools.
My issue with VBscript and VB6 is when I use them to script windows or office applications (the right domain for them) - i find myself struggling with the language (they fall short of being the right tool).
VBScript's lack of easy to use native data structures (such as associative containers/maps) and other quirks (such as set for assignment to objects) is a needless and frustrating annoyance, especially for a scripting language. Contrast it with Javascript (which i now use to program wscript/cscript windows and do activex automation scripts) which is far more expressive. While there are certain things that work better with vbscript (such as passing arrays back and forth from COM objects is slightly easier, although it is easier to pass event handlers into COM components with jscript), I am still surprised by the amount of coders that still use vbscript to script windows - I bet if they wrote the same program in both languages they would find that jscript works with you much more than vbscript, because of jscript's native hash data types and closures.
Vb6/VBA, though a little better than vbscript in general, still has many similar issues where (for their domain) they require much more boiler plate to do simple tasks than what I would like and have seen in other scripting languages.

In 25+ years of computer programming, by far the worst thing I've ever experienced was a derivative of MUMPS called Meditech Magic. It's much more evil than PHP could ever hope to be.
It doesn't even use '=' for assignment! 100^b assigns a value of 100 to b and is read as "100 goes to b". Basically, this language invented its own syntax from top to bottom. So no matter how many programming languages you know, Magic will be a complete mystery to you.
Here is 100 bottles of beer on the wall written in this abomination of a language:
BEERv1.1,
100^b,T("")^#,DO{b'<1 NN(b,"bottle"_IF{b=1 " ";"s "}_"of beer on the wall")^#,
N(b,"bottle"_IF{b=1 " ";"s "}_"of beer!")^#,
N("You take one down, pass it around,")^#,b-1^b,
N(b,"bottle"_IF{b=1 " ";"s "}_"of beer on the wall!")^#},
END;

TCL. It only compiles code right before it executes, so it's possible that if your code never went down branch A while testing, and one day, in the field it goes down branch A, it could have a SYNTAX ERROR!

Related

Tools for Domain Specific Language/Functions

Our users can enter questions that get answered by students. Our users need a extensible, flexible way to define the correct answers to these questions (which are stored as a simple string).
I would like to expose a library of domain specific functions that users can call on to describe the correct answer. Eg:
exact_match("puppy") // means the correct answer is the string 'puppy'
or
contains("yesterday") // means any answer with the word 'yesterday' is correct
The naive implementation would involve eval'ing user supplied strings in a sandboxed runtime (like a javascript vm or ruby vm). But I'd like to go further and only allow specific functions to be called. Any other scripting would be discarded. Such that:
puts("foo"); contains("yesterday")
would be illegal. Since we don't expose or allow puts().
How can I constrain the execution environment to only run a whitelist of functions? Or is there a different approach to build this kind of external-facing DSL instead of trying to constrain an existing language to a subset of functions?

I would check out MPS by JetBrains if I were you, its an open source DSL creation tool. I have never used it myself, but from everything I have seen on it, it's very intuitive; and all of their other products are incredibly powerful.

Just because you're creating a DSL, that doesn't necessarily mean that you have to give the user the ability to enter the code in text.
The key to this is providing a list of method names and your special keyword for them, the "FunCode" tag in the code example below:
Create a mapping from keyword to code, and letting them define everything they need, and then use it. And I would actually build my own XML parser so that it's not hackable, at least not on a list of zero-day-exploits hackable.
<strDefs>
<strDef><strNam>sickStr</strNam>
<strText>sick</strText><strNum>01</strNum><strDef>
<strDef><strNam>pupStr</strNam>
<strText>puppy</strText><strNum>02</strNum><strDef>
</strDefs>
<funDefs>
<funDef><funCode>pfContainsStr</funCode><funLabel>contains</funLabel>
<funNum>01</funNum></funDef>
<funDef><funCode>pfXact</funCode><funLabel>exact_match</funLabel>
<funNum>02</funNum></funDef>
</funDefs>
<queries>
<query><fun>01</fun><str>02</str>
</query>
</queries>
The above XML more represents the idea and the structure of what to do, but rather in a user interface, so the user is constrained. The user interface code that allows the data-entry of the above data should be running on your server, and they only interact with it. Any code that runs on their browser is hackable, because they can just save the page, edit the HTML (and/or JavaScript), and run that, which is their code now, not yours anymore.
You can't really open the door (pandora's box) and allow just anyone to write just any code and have it evaluated / interpreted by the language parser, because some hacker is going to exploit it. You must lock down the strings, probably by having them enter them into your database in an earlier step, and each string gets its own token that YOU generate (a SQL Server primary key is very simple, usable, and secure), but give them a display representation so it's readable to them.
Then give them a list of methods / functions they can use, along with a token (a primary key can also serve here, perhaps with a kind of table prefix) and also a display representation (label).
If you have them put all of their labels into yet another table, you can have SQL make sure that all of their labels are unique to each other in the whole "language", and then you can allow them to try to define their expressions in the language they want to use. This has the advantage that foreign languages can be used, but you don't have to do anything terribly special.
An important piece would be the verify button, that would translate their expression into unique tokens and back again, checking that the round-trip was successful. If it wasn't successful, there's some kind of ambiguity, and you might be able to allow them an option to use the list of tokens as the source in that case.
If you heavily rely on set-based logic for the underlying foundation of the language and your tables, you should be able to produce a coherent DSL that works. Many DSL creation problems are ones of integrity, where there are underlying assumptions that are contradictory, unintentionally mutually exclusive, or nonsensical. Truth is an unshakeable foundation. Anything else has a lie somewhere -- that you're trying to build on.
Sudoku is illustrative here. When you screw up a Sudoku, you often don't know that you have done so, and you keep building on that false foundation, until you get to the completion of the puzzle, and one whole string of assumptions disagrees with a different string of assumptions. They can't both be true. But you can't tell where you went wrong because you're too far away from the mistake and can not work backwards (easily). All steps taken look correct. A DSL, a database schema, and code, are all this way. Baby steps, that are double- and even triple-checked, and hopefully "correct by inspection", are the best way to "grow" a DSL, slowly, piece-by-piece. The best way to not have flaws is to not add them in the first place.
You don't want bugs in your DSL. Keep it spartan. KISS - Keep it simple, Sparticus! And I have personally found that keeping it set-based, if not overtly, under the covers, accomplishes this very well.
Finally, to be able to think this way, I've studied languages for a long time, and have cultivated a curiosity about how languages have come to be. Books are a good quality source of information, as they have a higher quality level than the internet, which is nevertheless also an indispensable source. Some of my favorite languages: Forth, Factor, SETL, F#, C#, Visual FoxPro (especially for its embedded SQL), T-SQL, Common LISP, Clojure, and probably my favorite, Dylan, an INFIX Lisp without parentheses that Apple experimented with and abandoned, with a syntax that seems to me reminiscent of Pascal, which I sort of liked. The language list is actually much longer than that (and I haven't written code for many of them -- just studied them or their genesis), but that's enough for now.
One of my favorite books, and immensely interesting for the "people" side of it, is "Masterminds of Programming: Conversations with the Creators of Major Programming Languages" (Theory in Practice (O'Reilly)) 1st Edition, Kindle Edition
by Federico Biancuzzi (Author), Chromatic (Author)
By the way, don't let them compromise the integrity of your DSL -- require that it is expressible set-based, and things should go well (IMHO). I hope it works out well for you. Add a comment to my answer telling me how it worked out, if you think of it. And don't forget to choose my answer if you think it's the best! We work hard for the money! ;-)

Can anyone explain the design decisions behind Autolisp/visual lisp to me?

I wonder can anyone explain the design rationale behind the following features of autolisp / visual lisp? To me they seem to fly in the face of accepted software practice ... am I missing something?
All variables are global by default (ie unless placed after a / in the function arguments)
Reading/writing data from autocad requires putting stuff into an association list with lots of magic numbers. 10 means x/y coordinates, 90 means length of the coordinate list, 63 means colour, etc. Ok you could store these in some constants but that would mean yet more globals, and the documentation encourages you to use the magic numbers directly.
Lisp is a functional-style language, which encourages programming by recursion over iteration, but tail recursion is afaik not optimised in visual lisp leading to horrendous call stacks - unless, of course you iterate. But loop syntax is very restrictive; e.g. you can't break out of or return a value from a loop unless you put some kind of flag in the termination condition. Result, ugly code.
Generally you are forced to declare variables all over the place which flies in the face of functional programming - so why use a functional(-ish) language?

Lisp isn't a language, it's a group of sometimes surprisingly different languages. Scheme and Clojure are the functional members of the family. Common Lisp, and the more specialized breeds like Elisp aren't particularly functional and don't inherently encourage functional programming or recursion. CL in fact includes a very flexible object system, an extremely flexible iteration DSL, and doesn't guarantee optimized tail calls (Scheme dialects do, but not Lisps in general; that's the pitfall in thinking of "Lisp" as a single language).
Now that we have that cleared up, AutoLisp is an implementation from 1986 based on an early version of XLISP (the earliest of which was published in 1983).
The reason that it might fly in the face of currently accepted programming practice is that it predates currently accepted programming practice. Another thing to keep in mind is that the cheapest netbook available today is several hundred times more powerful than what a programmer could expect to have access to back in the mid 80s. Meaning that even if a given feature was accepted to be excellent, CPU or memory constraints may have prevented its implementation in a commercial language.
I've never programmed in Autolisp/Visual Lisp specifically, and the stuff you cite sounds bloody annoying, but it may have had some performance/memory advantage that justified it at the time.

If I remember correctly, AutoLisp is a fork from an early version of XLisp (some sources claim it was XLisp 1.0 (see this C2 article).
XLisp 1.0 is a 1-cell lisp (functions and variables share the same name-space) with some rather odd oddities to it.

You can add dynamic scoping into the mix btw, and if you don't know what it is consider yourself lucky. But actually not all your four points are that big of a deal IMO:
"Undeclared vars are created automatically as global." Same as in CL is it not (via setq)? The other option is to fail, and that's not a very attractive one for the language which is supposed to be used for quick-n-dirty scripting.
"magic numbers" are DXF-codes, which you're right are major inconvenience as they tend to change with the changing ACAD versions sometimes (thankfully, rarely). That's just how it is. Fixing it would require a major overhaul, introducing some "schemas" and what not, and why would "they" bother? AutoLISP was left in its state as of 1992 approximately, and never bothered with since. Visual LISP itself is entirely different and much more capable system, but it is all locked out for the regular user, and only made to serve one goal - to emulate the old AutoLISP as faithfully as possible (except where it added new VBA-related features in the later half of the 1990s, and was locked since then too).
(while (not done) ...) is not that ugly. There's no tail optimization guarantee, yes, just as there isn't one in CL and Haskell (that last one really stumbles me - there's no guaranteed way to encode a loop in Haskell in constant space without monads - how about that?).
"you're forced to declare vars all over the place" here I do not follow you. You declare them were you supposed to declare them - in the function's internal arguments list. What other places do you mean? I don't know of any.
In reality the biggest stumbling block of AutoLISP is its dynamic name resolution IMO, but that's how it was in Xlisp, only few years after Scheme first came out. Then also it's its immutable data store, but that was done mainly for simplicity of implementation, and to prevent too much confusion and hence questions, from the user base, I guess.

Right Language for the Job

Using the right language for the job is the key - this is the comment I read in SO and I also belive thats the right thing to do. Because of this we ended up using different languages for different parts of the project - like perl, VBA(Excel Macros), C# etc. We have three to four languages currently in use inside the project. Using the right language for the job has made it immensly more easy to do automate a job, but of late people are complaining that any new person who has to take over the project will have to learn so many different languages to get started. Also it is difficult to find such kind of person. Please note that this is a one to two person working on the project maximum at a given point of time. I would like to know if the method we are following is right or should we converge to single language and try to use it across all the job even though another language might be better suited for it. Your experenece related to this would also help.
Languages used and their purpose:
Perl - Processing large text file(log files)
C# with Silverlight for web based reporting.
LabVIEW for automation
Excel macros for processing data in excel sheets, generating graphs and exporting to powerpoint.

I'd say you are doing it right. Almost all the projects I've ever worked on have used multiple languages, without any problems. I think you may be overestimating the difficulty people have picking up new languages, particularly if they all use the same paradigm. If your project were using Haskell, Smalltalk, C++ and assembler, you might have difficulties, I must admit :-)

Using a variety languages vs maintainability is simply another design decision with cost-vs-benefits trade-offs that, like any design decision, need to considered carefully. While I like using the "absolute best" tool for the task (whatever "absolute best" means), I wouldn't necessarily use it without considering other factors such as:
do we have sufficient skill and experience to implement successfully
will we be able to find the necessary resources to maintain it
do we already use the language/tech in our system
does the increase in complexity to the overall system (e.g. integration issues, the impact on build automation) outweigh the benefits of using the "absolute best" language
is there another language that we already use and have experience in that is usable in lieu of the "absolute best" language
I worked a system with around a dozen engineers that used C++, Java, SQL, TCL, C, shell scripts, and just a touch of Perl. I was proud that we used the "best language" where they made sense, but, in one case, using the "best language" (TCL) was a mistake - not because it was TCL - but rather because we failed to observe the full costs-vs-benefits of the choice:*
we had only 1 engineer deeply familiar with TCL - the original engineer who refused to use anything but TCL for a particular target component - and then that engineer left the project
this target component was the only part of the system to use TCL and it was small relative to the other components in the system
the component could have been also implemented in another language we already used that we had plenty of experience in (C or C++) with some extra effort
the component appeared deceptively simple, but in reality had subtle corner cases that bit us in production (not something we could have known then, but always something to consider as a possibility later)
we had to implement special changes to the nightly build because the TCL compiler (yes, we compiled the TCL code into an executable) wouldn't work unless it could first throw its logo up on the screen - a screen which wasn't available during a cron-initiated automated nightly build. (We resorted to using xvfb to satisfy it.)
when bugs turned up, we had difficult time finding engineers who wanted to work on it
when problems with this component cropped up only after sustained load in the field, we lacked the experience and deep understanding of the TCL execution engine to easily debug it in the field
finally, the maintenance and sustainment team, which is a much smaller team with fewer resources than the main development team, had one more language that they needed training and experience in just to support this relatively small component
Although there were a number of things we could have done to head-off some of the issues we hit down the road (e.g. put more emphasis on getting TCL experience earlier, running better tests to detect the issues earlier, etc), my point is that the overall cost-vs-benefit didn't justify using TCL to code that single component. Again, it was not a mistake to use TCL because it was TCL (TCL is a fine language), but rather it was a mistake because we failed to give full consideration to the cost-vs-benefits.

As a Software Engineer it's your job to learn new languages if you need to. I would say you should go with the right tool for the job.
It's like sweeping the floor with an octopus. Yeah, it gets the job done... kind of... but it's probably not the best tool for the job. You're better off using a mop.
Another option is to create positions geared towards working in specific languages. So you can have a C# developer, a Perl developer, and a VBA developer who will only work with that language. It's a bit more overhead, but it is a workable solution.

Any modern software project of any scope -- even if it's a one-person job -- requires more than one language. For instance, a web project usually requires Javascript, a backend language, and a DB query language (though any of these might be created by the backend language). That said, there's a threshold that is easily reached, and then it would be very hard to find new developers to take over projects. What's the limit? Three languages? Four? Let's say: five is too many, but one would be too few for any reasonably complex project.

Using the right language for the right job is definitely appropriate - I am mainly a web programmer, and I need to know server-side programming (Rails, PHP + others), SQL, Javascript, jQuery, HTML & CSS (not programming languages strictly, but complex things I need to know) - it would be impossible for me to do all of that in a single language or technology.
If you have a team of smart developers, picking up new languages will not be a problem for them. In fact they probably will be eager to do so. Just make sure they are given adequate time (and mentoring) to learn the new language.
Sure, there will be a learning curve to implementing production code if there is a new language to learn, but you will have a stronger team member for it.
If you have developers in your teams who strongly resist learning new languages, unless there is a very good reason (e.g they are justifiably adamant that they are being asked to used a different language when it is not appropriate to do so) - then they are not the sort of developers I'd want in my teams.
And don't bother trying to hire people who know all the languages you use. Hire smart programmers (who probably know at least one language you use) - they should pick up the other languages just fine.

I would be of the opinion, that if I a programmer on my team wanted to introduce a second (or third) language into a project, that there better be VERY VERY good reason to do so; as a project manager I would need to be convinced that the cost of doing so, more than offset the problems. And it would take a lot of convincing.
Splitting up project into multiple languages makes it very expensive to hire the right person(s) to take over that project when it needs maintenance. For small and medium shops it could be a huge obstacle.
Edit: I am not talking about using javascript and c# on the same project, I am talking about using C# for most of the code, F# for a few parts and then VB or C++ for others - there would need to be a compelling reason.
KISS: 'Keep it simple stupid' is a good axiom to follow in most cases.
EDIT: I am not completely opposed to adding languages, but the burden of proof is on the person to who wants to do it. KISS (to me) applies to not only getting the project/product done and shipped, but also must take into account the lifetime maint. and support requirements. Lots of languages come and go, and programmers are attracted to new languages like a moth to a light. Most projects I have worked on, I still oversee and/or support 5 or 10 years later - last thing I want to see is some long forgotten and/or orphaned language responsible for some key part of an application I need to support.

My experience using C++ and Lua was that I wrote more glue than actual operational code and for dubious benefit.

I'd start by saying the issue is whether you are using the right paradigm for the job?
Suppose you know how to do object oriented programming in C#. I don't think the leap to Java is all that great . Although you'd have to familiarize yourself with libraries and syntax, the idea is pretty similar.
If you have procedural parts to your project, such as parsing files and various data transformations, your Perl/Excel Macros seem pretty similar.
But to address your issues, I'd say above all, you'll need clarity in code. Since your staff are using several languages, they won't be familiar with all languages to an equal degree. So make sure of this:
1) Syntactic sugar is explained in comments. Sugars are pretty language specific and may not be obvious to a new reader. For instance, in VBA I seem to remember there are default properties, so that TextBox1 = "Hello" is what you'd write instead of TextBox1.Text = "Hello". This can be confusing. Also, things like LINQ statements can have un-obvious meanings. So make sure people have comments to read.
2) Where two components from different languages have to work together, make excruciatingly specific details about how that happens. For instance, I once had to write a C component to be called from Excel VBA. There's quote a few steps and potential errors in doing this, especially as far as compiler flags. Make sure both sides know how their side of the interaction occurs.
Finally, as far as hiring people goes, I think you have to find people who aren't married to a specific language. To put it vaguely, hire an intelligent person who sees business issues, not code. He'll learn the lingo soon enough.

For what reasons do some programmers vehemently hate languages where whitespace matters (e.g. Python)? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
C++ is my first language, and as such I'm used to whitespace being ignored. However, I've been toying around with Python, and I don't find it too hard to get used to the whitespace rules. It seems, however, that a lot of programmers on the Internet can't get past the whitespace rules. From what I've seen, peoples' C++ programs tend to be formatted very consistently with respect to whitespace (or else it's pretty hard to read), so why do some people have such a problem with whitespace-based languages like Python?

It violates the Principle of Least Astonishment, because we have it ingrained in ourselves (whether for good or bad) that whitespace Does Not Matter in a programming language. Whitespace is one of those issues that has been left up to personal style.
I still have bad memories back from being a student of learning the hard way that 8 spaces is not equivalent to a tab in a Makefile... Ah, the sleep I lost...

The only valid reason I have come across is that refactoring using cut-and-paste (not copy) without refactoring tools (or syntax-aware cut-andpaste), can end up changing semantics if an easy mistake is made.

There are several different types of whitespace (spaces, tabs, weird unicode characters, carriage returns, line breaks, etc.), they aren't necessarily visually distinct, and languages and editors may treat them capriciously. This isn't an argument against well-designed whitespace semantics, but many people are against all forms of it simply because of the possibility of poor design.

People hate it because it violates common sense. Not a single one of the replies I have read here decided that it was ok to simply forgo periods and other punctuations. In fact the grammar has been very good. If the nonsense about indentation actually carrying the meaning were true we would all just forget about using punctuations entirely.
No one learned that newlines terminate a sentence in a horizontal language like English, instead we learned to infer when a sentence ended regardless of whether or not the punctuation was present or not.
The same is true for programming languages, especially for those of us who started out with a programming language that did use explicit block termination. You learn to infer where a block starts and stops over time, it does not mean that the spacing did that for you, the semantics of the language itself did.
Most literate people would have no problem understanding posts without punctuations. Having to rely on what is a representation of the absence of a character is not a good idea. Do any of you count from zero when you make your to-do list?

Alright, this is a very narrow perspective, but I haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere: keeping track of white space is a hassle if you are trying to autogenerate a script.
When I first encountered Python, I don't remember the details, but I had developed a Windows tool with a GUI that allowed novice users to configure several settings, and then press OK. The output of the tool was a script, which the user could copy to a Unix machine, and then execute it there to do something or other that was too complicated or tedious for them to do manually. Since nobody maintained the generated scripts, there was no reason they needed to look nice. So, keeping track of indentation seemed like an unnecessary burden from that perspective.
For most purposes, though, I find that Python is much easier than any other language.

Perhaps your C++ background (and thus who your peers are) is clouding your perception of this (ie selective sampling) but in my experience the reaction to Python's "white space is intent" meme is anywhere from ambivalent to they absolutely love it. The reason a lot of people love it is that it forces people to format their code.
I can't say I've ever met anyone who "hates" it because hating it is much like hating the idea of well-formatted code.
Edit: let me put this in some perspective.
In the Java world there are two main methods of packaging and deploying Web apps: Ant and Maven.
Ant is basically an XML-based Make facility that has tasks for the common things you do. It's a blank slate, which is powerful, but it also means you have to write a lot of common things yourself and every installation is free to do things slightly differently. All of this is well-intentioned but can make it hard to figure out someone's Ant scripts.
Maven is far more fully features. It has archetypes, which are basically project types. Depending on which archetype(s) you use, you won't have to write any tasks to start, stop, clean, build, etc but you will have a mandated directory structure, which is quite deep.
The advantage of that is if you've seen one Maven Web app you've seen them all. You know the commands. You know the structure. That's extremely useful.
But you have people who absolutely hate Maven and I think it comes down to this: they don't like giving up control, even when it's ultimately in their interest to do so. Also, you'll find a certain brand of person who thinks that their use case is a justifiable exception. You see this personality trait a lot. For example, I think an old Joel post mentioned a story where someone wanted to use "enter" to go from the username to password form fields even though the convention was that enter executed the default action (usually "OK") so they had to write a custom dialog class for Windows for this.
Basically some people just don't like being told what to do and others are completely obstinate in their belief that they're right even when all evidence points to the contrary.
This probably explains why some supposedly hate Python's white space: they don't like being told how to format their code. They like the freedom of C/C++.

Because change is scary. And maybe, among certain developers, there are some faint memories of languages with capricious rules about whitespacing that were hard to remember and arbitrary, meant more for compiler convenience than expressiveness.
Most likely, not giving whitespace-significance a fair shake before dismissing it is the real reason. Ask someone to fix a bug in a reasonably complex but well-written Python program, then ask them to go fix a bug in a 20 year old system in C, VB or Cobol and ask them which they prefer.
As for me, I have as much trouble with whitespace in Python or Boo as I have with parentheses in Lisp. Which is to say, none.

They will have to get used to it. Initially I had a problem my self trying to read some examples but after using language for some time I started liking it.
I believe it is a habit that people has to overcome.

Some have developed habits (for example: deeply nested loops, unnecessarily large functions) that they perceive would be hard to support in a whitespace sensitive language.
Some have developed an aesthetic dislike for hanging indents.

Because they are used to languages like C and JavaScript where they can align items as they please.
When it comes to Python, you have to indent code based on its context:
def Print():
ManyArgumentFunction(LongParam1,LongParam2,LongParam3,LongParam4...
In C, you could do:
void Print()
{
ManyArgumentFunction(LongParam1,
LongParam2,
LongParam3,...
}

The only complaints I (also of C++ background) have heard about Python are from people who don't like using the "Replace Tabs with Space" option in their IDE.

What do people find so appealing about dynamic languages? [closed]

I think the reason is that people are used to statically typed languages that have very limited and inexpressive type systems. These are languages like Java, C++, Pascal, etc. Instead of going in the direction of more expressive type systems and better type inference, (as in Haskell, for example, and even SQL to some extent), some people like to just keep all the "type" information in their head (and in their tests) and do away with static typechecking altogether.
What this buys you in the end is unclear. There are many misconceived notions about typechecking, the ones I most commonly come across are these two.
Fallacy: Dynamic languages are less verbose. The misconception is that type information equals type annotation. This is totally untrue. We all know that type annotation is annoying. The machine should be able to figure that stuff out. And in fact, it does in modern compilers. Here is a statically typed QuickSort in two lines of Haskell (from haskell.org):
qsort [] = []
qsort (x:xs) = qsort (filter (< x) xs) ++ [x] ++ qsort (filter (>= x) xs)
And here is a dynamically typed QuickSort in LISP (from swisspig.net):
(defun quicksort (lis) (if (null lis) nil
(let* ((x (car lis)) (r (cdr lis)) (fn (lambda (a) (< a x))))
(append (quicksort (remove-if-not fn r)) (list x)
(quicksort (remove-if fn r))))))
The Haskell example falsifies the hypothesis statically typed, therefore verbose. The LISP example falsifies the hypothesis verbose, therefore statically typed. There is no implication in either direction between typing and verbosity. You can safely put that out of your mind.
Fallacy: Statically typed languages have to be compiled, not interpreted. Again, not true. Many statically typed languages have interpreters. There's the Scala interpreter, The GHCi and Hugs interpreters for Haskell, and of course SQL has been both statically typed and interpreted for longer than I've been alive.
You know, maybe the dynamic crowd just wants freedom to not have to think as carefully about what they're doing. The software might not be correct or robust, but maybe it doesn't have to be.
Personally, I think that those who would give up type safety to purchase a little temporary liberty, deserve neither liberty nor type safety.

Don't forget that you need to write 10x code coverage in unit tests to replace what your compiler does :D
I've been there, done that with dynamic languages, and I see absolutely no advantage.

When reading other people's responses, it seems that there are more or less three arguments for dynamic languages:
1) The code is less verbose.
I don't find this valid. Some dynamic languages are less verbose than some static ones. But F# is statically typed, but the static typing there does not add much, if any, code. It is implicitly typed, though, but that is a different thing.
2) "My favorite dynamic language X has my favorite functional feature Y, so therefore dynamic is better". Don't mix up functional and dynamic (I can't understand why this has to be said).
3) In dynamic languages you can see your results immediately. News: You can do that with C# in Visual Studio (since 2005) too. Just set a breakpoint, run the program in the debugger and modify the program while debbuging. I do this all the time and it works perfectly.
Myself, I'm a strong advocate for static typing, for one primary reason: maintainability. I have a system with a couple 10k lines of JavaScript in it, and any refactoring I want to do will take like half a day since the (non-existent) compiler will not tell me what that variable renaming messed up. And that's code I wrote myself, IMO well structured, too. I wouldn't want the task of being put in charge of an equivalent dynamic system that someone else wrote.
I guess I will be massively downvoted for this, but I'll take the chance.

VBScript sucks, unless you're comparing it to another flavor of VB.
PHP is ok, so long as you keep in mind that it's an overgrown templating language.
Modern Javascript is great. Really. Tons of fun. Just stay away from any scripts tagged "DHTML".
I've never used a language that didn't allow runtime errors. IMHO, that's largely a red-herring: compilers don't catch all typos, nor do they validate intent. Explicit typing is great when you need explicit types, but most of the time, you don't. Search for the questions here on generics or the one about whether or not using unsigned types was a good choice for index variables - much of the time, this stuff just gets in the way, and gives folks knobs to twiddle when they have time on their hands.
But, i haven't really answered your question. Why are dynamic languages appealing? Because after a while, writing code gets dull and you just want to implement the algorithm. You've already sat and worked it all out in pen, diagrammed potential problem scenarios and proved them solvable, and the only thing left to do is code up the twenty lines of implementation... and two hundred lines of boilerplate to make it compile. Then you realize that the type system you work with doesn't reflect what you're actually doing, but someone else's ultra-abstract idea of what you might be doing, and you've long ago abandoned programming for a life of knicknack tweaking so obsessive-compulsive that it would shame even fictional detective Adrian Monk.
That's when you go get plastered start looking seriously at dynamic languages.

I am a full-time .Net programmer fully entrenched in the throes of statically-typed C#. However, I love modern JavaScript.
Generally speaking, I think dynamic languages allow you to express your intent more succinctly than statically typed languages as you spend less time and space defining what the building blocks are of what you are trying to express when in many cases they are self evident.
I think there are multiple classes of dynamic languages, too. I have no desire to go back to writing classic ASP pages in VBScript. To be useful, I think a dynamic language needs to support some sort of collection, list or associative construct at its core so that objects (or what pass for objects) can be expressed and allow you to build more complex constructs. (Maybe we should all just code in LISP ... it's a joke ...)
I think in .Net circles, dynamic languages get a bad rap because they are associated with VBScript and/or JavaScript. VBScript is just a recalled as a nightmare for many of the reasons Kibbee stated -- anybody remember enforcing type in VBScript using CLng to make sure you got enough bits for a 32-bit integer. Also, I think JavaScript is still viewed as the browser language for drop-down menus that is written a different way for all browsers. In that case, the issue is not language, but the various browser object models. What's interesting is that the more C# matures, the more dynamic it starts to look. I love Lambda expressions, anonymous objects and type inference. It feels more like JavaScript everyday.

Here is a statically typed QuickSort in two lines of Haskell (from haskell.org):
qsort [] = []
qsort (x:xs) = qsort (filter (< x) xs) ++ [x] ++ qsort (filter (>= x) xs)
And here is a dynamically typed QuickSort in LISP (from swisspig.net):
(defun quicksort (lis) (if (null lis) nil
(let* ((x (car lis)) (r (cdr lis)) (fn (lambda (a) (< a x))))
(append (quicksort (remove-if-not fn r)) (list x)
(quicksort (remove-if fn r))))))
I think you're biasing things with your choice of language here. Lisp is notoriously paren-heavy. A closer equivelent to Haskell would be Python.
if len(L) <= 1: return L
return qsort([lt for lt in L[1:] if lt < L[0]]) + [L[0]] + qsort([ge for ge in L[1:] if ge >= L[0]])
Python code from here

For me, the advantage of dynamic languages is how much more readable the code becomes due to less code and functional techniques like Ruby's block and Python's list comprehension.
But then I kind of miss the compile time checking (typo does happen) and IDE auto complete. Overall, the lesser amount of code and readability pays off for me.
Another advantage is the usually interpreted/non compiled nature of the language. Change some code and see the result immediately. It's really a time saver during development.
Last but not least, I like the fact that you can fire up a console and try out something you're not sure of, like a class or method that you've never used before and see how it behaves. There are many uses for the console and I'll just leave that for you to figure out.

Your arguments against dynamic languages are perfectly valid. However, consider the following:
Dynamic languages don't need to be compiled: just run them. You can even reload the files at run time without restarting the application in most cases.
Dynamic languages are generally less verbose and more readable: have you ever looked at a given algorithm or program implemented in a static language, then compared it to the Ruby or Python equivalent? In general, you're looking at a reduction in lines of code by a factor of 3. A lot of scaffolding code is unnecessary in dynamic languages, and that means the end result is more readable and more focused on the actual problem at hand.
Don't worry about typing issues: the general approach when programming in dynamic languages is not to worry about typing: most of the time, the right kind of argument will be passed to your methods. And once in a while, someone may use a different kind of argument that just happens to work as well. When things go wrong, your program may be stopped, but this rarely happens if you've done a few tests.
I too found it a bit scary to step away from the safe world of static typing at first, but for me the advantages by far outweigh the disadvantages, and I've never looked back.

I believe that the "new found love" for dynamically-typed languages have less to do with whether statically-typed languages are better or worst - in the absolute sense - than the rise in popularity of certain dynamic languages. Ruby on Rails was obviously a big phenomenon that cause the resurgence of dynamic languages. The thing that made rails so popular and created so many converts from the static camp was mainly: very terse and DRY code and configuration. This is especially true when compared to Java web frameworks which required mountains of XML configuration. Many Java programmers - smart ones too - converted over, and some even evangelized ruby and other dynamic languages. For me, three distinct features allow dynamic languages like Ruby or Python to be more terse:
Minimalist syntax - the big one is that type annotations are not required, but also the the language designer designed the language from the start to be terse
inline function syntax(or the lambda) - the ability to write inline functions and pass them around as variables makes many kinds of code more brief. In particular this is true for list/array operations. The roots of this ideas was obviously - LISP.
Metaprogramming - metaprogramming is a big part of what makes rails tick. It gave rise to a new way of refactoring code that allowed the client code of your library to be much more succinct. This also originate from LISP.
All three of these features are not exclusive to dynamic languages, but they certainly are not present in the popular static languages of today: Java and C#. You might argue C# has #2 in delegates, but I would argue that it's not widely used at all - such as with list operations.
As for more advanced static languages... Haskell is a wonderful language, it has #1 and #2, and although it doesn't have #3, it's type system is so flexible that you will probably not find the lack of meta to be limiting. I believe you can do metaprogramming in OCaml at compile time with a language extension. Scala is a very recent addition and is very promising. F# for the .NET camp. But, users of these languages are in the minority, and so they didn't really contribute to this change in the programming languages landscape. In fact, I very much believe the popularity of Ruby affected the popularity of languages like Haskell, OCaml, Scala, and F# in a positive way, in addition to the other dynamic languages.

Personally, I think it's just that most of the "dynamic" languages you have used just happen to be poor examples of languages in general.
I am way more productive in Python than in C or Java, and not just because you have to do the edit-compile-link-run dance. I'm getting more productive in Objective-C, but that's probably more due to the framework.
Needless to say, I am more productive in any of these languages than PHP. Hell, I'd rather code in Scheme or Prolog than PHP. (But lately I've actually been doing more Prolog than anything else, so take that with a grain of salt!)

My appreciation for dynamic languages is very much tied to how functional they are. Python's list comprehensions, Ruby's closures, and JavaScript's prototyped objects are all very appealing facets of those languages. All also feature first-class functions--something I can't see living without ever again.
I wouldn't categorize PHP and VB (script) in the same way. To me, those are mostly imperative languages with all of the dynamic-typing drawbacks that you suggest.
Sure, you don't get the same level of compile-time checks (since there ain't a compile time), but I would expect static syntax-checking tools to evolve over time to at least partially address that issue.

One of the advantages pointed out for dynamic languages is to just be able to change the code and continue running. No need to recompile. In VS.Net 2008, when debugging, you can actually change the code, and continue running, without a recompile. With advances in compilers and IDEs, is it possible that this and other advantages of using dynamic languages will go away.

Ah, I didn't see this topic when I posted similar question
Aside from good features the rest of the folks mentioned here about dynamic languages, I think everybody forget one, the most basic thing: metaprogramming.
Programming the program.
Its pretty hard to do in compiled languages, generally, take for example .Net. To make it work you have to make all kind of mambo jumbo and it usualy ends with code that runs around 100 times slower.
Most dynamic languages have a way to do metaprogramming and that is something that keeps me there - ability to create any kind of code in memory and perfectly integrate it into my applicaiton.
For instance to create calculator in Lua, all I have to do is:
print( loadstring( "return " .. io.read() )() )
Now, try to do that in .Net.

My main reason for liking dynamic (typed, since that seems to be the focus of the thread) languages is that the ones I've used (in a work environment) are far superior to the non-dynamic languages I've used. C, C++, Java, etc... they're all horrible languages for getting actual work done in. I'd love to see an implicitly typed language that's as natural to program in as many of the dynamically typed ones.
That being said, there's certain constructs that are just amazing in dynamically typed languages. For example, in Tcl
lindex $mylist end-2
The fact that you pass in "end-2" to indicate the index you want is incredibly concise and obvious to the reader. I have yet to see a statically typed language that accomplishes such.

I think this kind of argument is a bit stupid: "Things that usually would have been caught by the compiler such as misspelled variable names and assigning an value of the wrong type to a variable don't occur until runtime" yes thats right as a PHP developer I don't see things like mistyped variables until runtime, BUT runtime is step 2 for me, in C++ (Which is the only compiled language I have any experience) it is step 3, after linking, and compiling.
Not to mention that it takes all of a few seconds after I hit save to when my code is ready to run, unlike in compiled languages where it can take literally hours. I'm sorry if this sounds a bit angry, but I'm kind of tired of people treating me as a second rate programmer because I don't have to compile my code.

The argument is more complex than this (read Yegge's article "Is Weak Typing Strong Enough" for an interesting overview).
Dynamic languages don't necessarily lack error checking either - C#'s type inference is possibly one example. In the same way, C and C++ have terrible compile checks and they are statically typed.
The main advantages of dynamic languages are a) capability (which doesn't necessarily have to be used all the time) and b) Boyd's Law of Iteration.
The latter reason is massive.

Although I'm not a big fan of Ruby yet, I find dynamic languages to be really wonderful and powerful tools.
The idea that there is no type checking and variable declaration is not too big an issue really. Admittedly, you can't catch these errors until run time, but for experienced developers this is not really an issue, and when you do make mistakes, they're usually easily fixed.
It also forces novices to read what they're writing more carefully. I know learning PHP taught me to be more attentive to what I was actually typing, which has improved my programming even in compiled languages.
Good IDEs will give enough intellisense for you to know whether a variable has been "declared" and they also try to do some type inference for you so that you can tell what a variable is.
The power of what can be done with dynamic languages is really what makes them so much fun to work with in my opinion. Sure, you could do the same things in a compiled language, but it would take more code. Languages like Python and PHP let you develop in less time and get a functional codebase faster most of the time.
And for the record, I'm a full-time .NET developer, and I love compiled languages. I only use dynamic languages in my free time to learn more about them and better myself as a developer..

I think that we need the different types of languages depending on what we are trying to achieve, or solve with them. If we want an application that creates, retrieves, updates and deletes records from the database over the internet, we are better off doing it with one line of ROR code (using the scaffold) than writing it from scratch in a statically typed language. Using dynamic languages frees up the minds from wondering about
which variable has which type
how to grow a string dynamically as needs be
how to write code so that if i change type of one variable, i dont have to rewrite all the function that interact with it
to problems that are closer to business needs like
data is saving/updating etc in the database, how do i use it to drive traffic to my site
Anyway, one advantage of loosely typed languages is that we dont really care what type it is, if it behaves like what it is supposed to. That is the reason we have duck-typing in dynamically typed languages. it is a great feature and i can use the same variable names to store different types of data as the need arises. also, statically typed languages force you to think like a machine (how does the compiler interact with your code, etc etc) whereas dynamically typed languages, especially ruby/ror, force the machine to think like a human.
These are some of the arguments i use to justify my job and experience in dynamic languages!

I think both styles have their strengths. This either/or thinking is kind of crippling to our community in my opinion. I've worked in architectures that were statically-typed from top to bottom and it was fine. My favorite architecture is for dynamically-typed at the UI level and statically-typed at the functional level. This also encourages a language barrier that enforces the separation of UI and function.
To be a cynic, it may be simply that dynamic languages allow the developer to be lazier and to get things done knowing less about the fundamentals of computing. Whether this is a good or bad thing is up to the reader :)

FWIW, Compiling on most applications shouldn't take hours. I have worked with applications that are between 200-500k lines that take minutes to compile. Certainly not hours.
I prefer compiled languages myself. I feel as though the debugging tools (in my experience, which might not be true for everything) are better and the IDE tools are better.
I like being able to attach my Visual Studio to a running process. Can other IDEs do that? Maybe, but I don't know about them. I have been doing some PHP development work lately and to be honest it isn't all that bad. However, I much prefer C# and the VS IDE. I feel like I work faster and debug problems faster.
So maybe it is more a toolset thing for me than the dynamic/static language issue?
One last comment... if you are developing with a local server saving is faster than compiling, but often times I don't have access to everything on my local machine. Databases and fileshares live elsewhere. It is easier to FTP to the web server and then run my PHP code only to find the error and have to fix and re-ftp.

Productivity in a certain context. But that is just one environment I know, compared to some others I know or have seen used.
Smalltalk on Squeak/Pharo with Seaside is a much more effective and efficient web platform than ASP.Net(/MVC), RoR or Wicket, for complex applications. Until you need to interface with something that has libraries in one of those but not smalltalk.
Misspelled variable names are red in the IDE, IntelliSense works but is not as specific. Run-time errors on webpages are not an issue but a feature, one click to bring up the debugger, one click to my IDE, fix the bug in the debugger, save, continue. For simple bugs, the round-trip time for this cycle is less than 20 seconds.

Dynamic Languages Strike Back
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz-Bb-D6teE
A talk discussing Dynamic Languages, what some of the positives are, and how many of the negatives aren't really true.

Because I consider stupid having to declare the type of the box.
The type stays with the entity, not with the container. Static typing had a sense when the type of the box had a direct consequence on how the bits in memory were interpreted.
If you take a look at the design patterns in the GoF, you will realize that a good part of them are there just to fight with the static nature of the language, and they have no reason whatsoever to exist in a dynamic language.
Also, I'm tired of having to write stuff like MyFancyObjectInterface f = new MyFancyObject(). DRY principle anyone ?

Put yourself in the place of a brand new programmer selecting a language to start out with, who doesn't care about dynamic versus staic versus lambdas versus this versus that etc.; which language would YOU choose?
C#
using System;
class MyProgram
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
foreach (string s in args)
{
Console.WriteLine(s);
}
}
}
Lua:
function printStuff(args)
for key,value in pairs(args) do
print value .. " "
end
end
strings = {
"hello",
"world",
"from lua"
}
printStuff(strings)

This all comes down to partially what's appropriate for the particular goals and what's a common personal preference. (E.G. Is this going to be a huge code base maintained by more people than can conduct a reasonable meeting together? You want type checking.)
The personal part is about trading off some checks and other steps for development and testing speed (while likely giving up some cpu performance). There's some people for which this is liberating and a performance boost, and there's some for which this is quite the opposite, and yes it does sort of depend on the particular flavor of your language too. I mean no one here is saying Java rocks for speedy, terse development, or that PHP is a solid language where you'll rarely make a hard to spot typo.

I have love for both static and dynamic languages. Every project that I've been involved in since about 2002 has been a C/C++ application with an embedded Python interpret. This gives me the best of both worlds:
The components and frameworks that make up the application are, for a given release of an application, immutable. They must also be very stable, and hence, well tested. A Statically typed language is the right choice for building these parts.
The wiring up of components, loading of component DLLs, artwork, most of the GUI, etc... can vary greatly (say, to customise the application for a client) with no need to change any framework or components code. A dynamic language is perfect for this.
I find that the mix of a statically typed language to build the system and a dynamically type language to configure it gives me flexibility, stability and productivity.
To answer the question of "What's with the love of dynamic languages?" For me it's the ability to completely re-wire a system at runtime in any way imaginable. I see the scripting language as "running the show", therefore the executing application may do anything you desire.

I don't have much experience with dynamic languages in general, but the one dynamic language I do know, JavaScript(aka ECMAScript), I absolutely love.
Well, wait, what's the discussion here? Dynamic compilation? Or dynamic typing? JavaScript covers both bases so I guess I'll talk about both:
Dynamic compilation:
To begin, dynamic languages are compiled, the compilation is simply put off until later. And Java and .NET really are compiled twice. Once to their respective intermediate languages, and again, dynamically, to machine code.
But when compilation is put off you can see results faster. That's one advantage. I do enjoy simply saving the file and seeing my program in action fairly quick.
Another advantage is that you can write and compile code at runtime. Whether this is possible in statically compiled code, I don't know. I imagine it must be, since whatever compiles JavaScript is ultimately machine code and statically compiled. But in a dynamic language this is a trivial thing to do. Code can write and run itself. (And I'm pretty sure .NET can do this, but the CIL that .NET compiles to is dynamically compiled on the fly anyways, and it's not so trivial in C#)
Dynamic typing:
I think dynamic typing is more expressive than static typing. Note that I'm using the term expressive informally to say that dynamic typing can say more with less. Here's some JavaScript code:
var Person = {};
Do you know what Person is now? It's a generic dictionary. I can do this:
Person["First_Name"] = "John";
Person["Last_Name"] = "Smith";
But it's also an object. I could refer to any of those "keys" like this:
Person.First_Name
And add any methods I deem necessary:
Person.changeFirstName = function(newName) {
this.First_Name = newName;
};
Sure, there might be problems if newName isn't a string. It won't be caught right away, if ever, but you can check yourself. It's a matter of trading expressive power and flexibility for safety. I don't mind adding code to check types, etc, myself, and I've yet to run into a type bug that gave me much grief (and I know that isn't saying much. It could be a matter of time :) ). I very much enjoy, however, that ability to adapt on the fly.

Nice blog post on the same topic: Python Makes Me Nervous
Method signatures are virtually
useless in Python. In Java, static
typing makes the method signature into
a recipe: it's all the shit you need
to make this method work. Not so in
Python. Here, a method signature will
only tell you one thing: how many
arguments you need to make it work.
Sometimes, it won't even do that, if
you start fucking around with
**kwargs.

Because it's fun fun fun. It's fun to not worry about memory allocation, for one. It's fun not waiting for compilation. etc etc etc

Weakly typed languages allow flexibility in how you manage your data.
I used VHDL last spring for several classes, and I like their method of representing bits/bytes, and how the compiler catches errors if you try to assign a 6-bit bus to a 9-bit bus. I tried to recreate it in C++, and I'm having a fair struggle to neatly get the typing to work smoothly with existing types. Steve Yegge does a very nice job of describing the issues involved with strong type systems, I think.
Regarding verbosity: I find Java and C# to be quite verbose in the large(let's not cherry-pick small algorithms to "prove" a point). And, yes, I've written in both. C++ struggles in the same area as well; VHDL succumbs here.
Parsimony appears to be a virtue of the dynamic languages in general(I present Perl and F# as examples).

Develop Reference

node.js excel linux python-3.x azure haskell apache-spark rust .htaccess string