3 ms·

Hmmm. Yes, you're right. Typesafe is probably the wrong word to describe this according to you and wikipedia :) The problem I tried to describe though is how f

by freekh 11y ago

Hmmm. Yes, you're right. Typesafe is probably the wrong word to describe this according to you and wikipedia :) The problem I tried to describe though is how feasible/typical/normal? it is to catch more or less (type) errors on compile time... Like here, where I basically my point is that it is too hard to use Java's type system to it's full extent because it becomes too cumbersome to actually use it on the callsite.

freekh 11y ago
Puh! Wikipedia also states: 'Type safety is sometimes alternatively considered to be a property of a computer program rather than the language in which that program is written; that is, some languages have type-safe facilities that can be circumvented by programmers who adopt practices that exhibit poor type safety.'. In (some) Java _programs_ you would circumvent modelling your domain correctly because it would be too cumbersome to use, therefore Java _programs_ tends to be less typesafe... I suppose that is how I use the term and heard it used in my everyday life, e.g. 'this code is more typesafe than that' and so on and so on... I guess I should have made it more clear that this how I used the word 'typesafe' (though your definition of it is more correct) and underlined that I meant Scala/Java _programs_ not the language (nor the type system) itself. Still, it is correct that type inference (rather obviously) doesn't have anything to do with type systems. EDIT: language, clarity