3 ms·

Okay, why don't you assume in everything I'm talking about fluffy rainbow butterflies or something nice like that? Principle of charity, right? That way we can

Okay, why don't you assume in everything I'm talking about fluffy rainbow butterflies or something nice like that? Principle of charity, right? That way we can both go our separate ways happily. If someone doesn't mean "fully statically typechecked" then they shouldn't say "fully statically typechecked". It's not an ambiguous phrase.

scott_s 10y ago
That is not what it means: http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html People have different backgrounds and and experiences. It's reasonable for a person to think "fully statically typechecked" to mean "a program which is statically typechecked, and it does so to the entire program". That would apply to languages such as C, C++ and Go, which are statically typed, but give ways to subvert the type system. You probably mean something closer to "a program which has fully sound static typing", more along the lines of the MLs or Haskell, which have a richer type system which you cannot subvert. We're here for interesting discussion. Derision is not a part of interesting discussion. You're relatively new here, so I figure it's worth explaining this explicitly.
- devishard 10y ago
  > That is not what it means: http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html I'm aware of what it means--I'm saying that the principle of charity doesn't apply. The principle of charity doesn't mean you get to actually change what the person is saying, it means you assume the best when there's ambiguity. > People have different backgrounds and and experiences. It's reasonable for a person to think "fully statically typechecked" to mean "a program which is statically typechecked, and it does so to the entire program". That would apply to languages such as C, C++ and Go, which are statically typed, but give ways to subvert the type system. But in the cases of C and Go, it's not just that--you can't use generics or templates, so you're stuck writing generic-like code with void* or object, respectively. That's not subverting the type system intentionally, it's just not type checked and there's no alternative. So these languages are not fully type checked, even if you don't subvert the type system. So even by your charitable definition, it's not fully statically type checked. The word "fully" has a meaning that's not ambiguous. There's not an interpretation of "fully statically typechecked" that includes Go, even being charitable. Every nontrivial Go codebase has sections that are not statically typechecked and can't be modified to be statically typechecked. > We're here for interesting discussion. Derision is not a part of interesting discussion. I'm here for interesting discussion, and I don't think that an interesting discussion starts from obvious falsehoods like "Go is a fully statically-typed language". Derision discourages making such statements and increases the average interesting-ness of discussion because people are afraid to say dumb things. People should think before they make claims. > You're relatively new here, so I figure it's worth explaining this explicitly. I'm not new here, I just delete my accounts every so often.
  - scott_s 10y ago
    Derision is not civil, and explicitly discouraged.
    - devishard 10y ago
      True, but given the entire point here is to have interesting conversations, I think that's a higher priority than civility.
      - scott_s 10y ago
        They are considered the same thing here. There is a reason it comes first in the guidelines on comments.

scott_s 10y ago

That is not what it means: http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html People have different backgrounds and and experiences. It's reasonable for a person to think "fully statically typechecked" to mean "a program which is statically typechecked, and it does so to the entire program". That would apply to languages such as C, C++ and Go, which are statically typed, but give ways to subvert the type system. You probably mean something closer to "a program which has fully sound static typing", more along the lines of the MLs or Haskell, which have a richer type system which you cannot subvert. We're here for interesting discussion. Derision is not a part of interesting discussion. You're relatively new here, so I figure it's worth explaining this explicitly.

devishard 10y ago
> That is not what it means: http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html I'm aware of what it means--I'm saying that the principle of charity doesn't apply. The principle of charity doesn't mean you get to actually change what the person is saying, it means you assume the best when there's ambiguity. > People have different backgrounds and and experiences. It's reasonable for a person to think "fully statically typechecked" to mean "a program which is statically typechecked, and it does so to the entire program". That would apply to languages such as C, C++ and Go, which are statically typed, but give ways to subvert the type system. But in the cases of C and Go, it's not just that--you can't use generics or templates, so you're stuck writing generic-like code with void* or object, respectively. That's not subverting the type system intentionally, it's just not type checked and there's no alternative. So these languages are not fully type checked, even if you don't subvert the type system. So even by your charitable definition, it's not fully statically type checked. The word "fully" has a meaning that's not ambiguous. There's not an interpretation of "fully statically typechecked" that includes Go, even being charitable. Every nontrivial Go codebase has sections that are not statically typechecked and can't be modified to be statically typechecked. > We're here for interesting discussion. Derision is not a part of interesting discussion. I'm here for interesting discussion, and I don't think that an interesting discussion starts from obvious falsehoods like "Go is a fully statically-typed language". Derision discourages making such statements and increases the average interesting-ness of discussion because people are afraid to say dumb things. People should think before they make claims. > You're relatively new here, so I figure it's worth explaining this explicitly. I'm not new here, I just delete my accounts every so often.
- scott_s 10y ago
  Derision is not civil, and explicitly discouraged.
  - devishard 10y ago
    True, but given the entire point here is to have interesting conversations, I think that's a higher priority than civility.
    - scott_s 10y ago
      They are considered the same thing here. There is a reason it comes first in the guidelines on comments.