3 ms·
> And no type safety! 90% type safety (probably even more) is more than no type safety. It's not a holy grail that all programming must strive for.
by mseepgood 10y ago
> And no type safety!
90% type safety (probably even more) is more than no type safety. It's not a holy grail that all programming must strive for.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- dtech 10y agoIt's a balance, but I am fairly disappointing that such an up-and-coming language has such a limited type system. In the days where even traditionally fully untyped languages are moving toward inferred, optional and static typing [1],[2],[3] I'm disappointed to see `interface {}` sprinkled throughout Go API's. [1] JS Typescript and flow: https://www.typescriptlang.org/ https://www.typescriptlang.org/, https://flowtype.org/ https://flowtype.org/ [2] Python with mypy: http://mypy-lang.org/ http://mypy-lang.org/ [3] PHP with Hack: http://hacklang.org/ http://hacklang.org/
- mseepgood 10y ago> In the days where even traditionally fully untyped languages are moving toward inferred, optional and static typing This only shows that the sweet spot is probably not in the extremes, but somewhere in between the dynamic type system - paranoid type system spectrum.