4 ms·

I haven't done large-scale refactoring work before. How does typing help with refactoring? Is it because you know exactly what's being passed into a function?

by japhyr 11y ago

JustSomeNobody 11y ago
Or that they're just used to their IDE doing all of it for them.
incepted 11y ago
You missed "automated" in "automated refactorings". This is what I'm talking about. Without types, IDE's can't perform automated refactorings: you need to supervise them and make sure the IDE didn't break code. This can't happen with static types.
- montibbalt 11y ago
  It makes manual refactoring easier too in the sense that you now have a tool that can tell you what you broke and how to fix it.
- ubernostrum 11y ago
  Without types, IDE's can't perform automated refactorings This is your obligatory reminder that the entire concept of automated refactoring was first developed in a dynamically-typed language.
luos 11y ago
It really helps when renaming methods for example. I am not sure how much it helps with extract method.
DougBTX 11y ago
Typing makes it easier to write a "find all references" function. Types distinguish whether a call to foo.bar() is calling the same bar as baz.bar(), which makes it easier to rename Foo's bar wherever it is used, but leave Baz's bar alone.
orblivion 11y ago
Often enough, in Haskell, you can boldly make the primary change you want to make, fix all of the ensuing type errors in the rest of the code, and your refactored code will run as expected. The compiler will more or less tell you what you missed.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
Refactoring changes how various chunks of code interact with each other. Types usually provide security against a limited set of bad interactions. Abstract or compound types can provide security against even more bad interactions, among other things. So, having simple, compiler-checked mechanisms for enforcing good interactions helps when you make changes that can cause bad interactions between chunks of code.

I haven't done large-scale refactoring work before. How does typing help with refactoring? Is it because you know exactly what's being passed into a function?

by japhyr 11y ago

I haven't done large-scale refactoring work before. How does typing help with refactoring? Is it because you know exactly what's being passed into a function?

JustSomeNobody 11y ago

Or that they're just used to their IDE doing all of it for them.

incepted 11y ago

You missed "automated" in "automated refactorings". This is what I'm talking about. Without types, IDE's can't perform automated refactorings: you need to supervise them and make sure the IDE didn't break code. This can't happen with static types.

montibbalt 11y ago
It makes manual refactoring easier too in the sense that you now have a tool that can tell you what you broke and how to fix it.
ubernostrum 11y ago
Without types, IDE's can't perform automated refactorings This is your obligatory reminder that the entire concept of automated refactoring was first developed in a dynamically-typed language.

luos 11y ago

It really helps when renaming methods for example. I am not sure how much it helps with extract method.

DougBTX 11y ago

Typing makes it easier to write a "find all references" function. Types distinguish whether a call to foo.bar() is calling the same bar as baz.bar(), which makes it easier to rename Foo's bar wherever it is used, but leave Baz's bar alone.

orblivion 11y ago

Often enough, in Haskell, you can boldly make the primary change you want to make, fix all of the ensuing type errors in the rest of the code, and your refactored code will run as expected. The compiler will more or less tell you what you missed.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

Refactoring changes how various chunks of code interact with each other. Types usually provide security against a limited set of bad interactions. Abstract or compound types can provide security against even more bad interactions, among other things. So, having simple, compiler-checked mechanisms for enforcing good interactions helps when you make changes that can cause bad interactions between chunks of code.