5 ms·
I think his argument is that without type inference, programmers will avoid more complex types, and therefor model their domain with less precise types.
by wtetzner 11y ago
I think his argument is that without type inference, programmers will avoid more complex types, and therefor model their domain with less precise types.
- freekh 11y agoYup :) The comment is valid though: you don't get more type safety because of type inference. Thus saying it gets more typesafe is probably wrong...
- usrusr 11y agoThe curious case of the broken inverse: you won't get more type safety by having type inference, but you are likely to end up with less type safety when you are not having it ;)
- incepted 11y agoI have seen no evidence of that. With that logic, Java programmers would use "Object" instead of "List<String>" because they have fewer characters to type? This makes no sense.
- usrusr 11y agoIt makes more sense after you have deliberately weakened the typing of an API because you felt that you were overstretching your co-developers (and/or your own) patience for nested angle brackets. The basic idea is that type inference would shift the sweet spot for the right amount of typing upwards.