3 ms·
> at the expense of maintenance and debugging, Do you realize how insane that sounds? Static typing makes programs harder to debug? Harder to maintain?? On
by loup-vaillant 9y ago
> at the expense of maintenance and debugging,
Do you realize how insane that sounds? Static typing makes programs harder to debug? Harder to maintain??
On the contrary, static typing helps debugging and maintenance: changes that break invariants are more likely to be caught by the type system.
This speak of tradeoff sounds wise on the surface, but this is hardly a tradeoff at all. For many people (including me), a good static type system makes prototyping and maintenance easier.
- emodendroket 9y agoIt probably sounds insane because you have interpreted my post to mean the exact opposite of what I intended.
- loup-vaillant 9y agoYour comment sounded like this to me: > Yeah, you [DarkKomunalec] basically [use static typing to] make initial implementation easier at the expense of maintenance and debugging It was not clear that "Yeah" was an approval (and not a dismissal), and it was not obvious that "you" was a general "you" (and not a personal "you" directed at DarkKomunalec). Nevertheless, you were still talking about a tradeoff, and I personally see none: in my experience, dynamic typing makes initial implementations harder (or longer), because so many errors are caught too late. Static type systems have a much tighter feedback loop.