4 ms·
I find that a significant fraction of the bugs introduced to the code bases I've worked on that have dynamic typing are due to issues that even a rudimentary st
by sidlls 9y ago
I find that a significant fraction of the bugs introduced to the code bases I've worked on that have dynamic typing are due to issues that even a rudimentary static typing system would prevent at compile time. I'm struggling to grok how a language with no type system might look. Something post-modern and Picasso-esque? To use data in a meaningful way in a program it must be possible to reason about it, and that requires that it have at least some structure.
- krallja 9y agoAssembly languages are untyped. Nothing prevents you from reinterpreting a memory address as a type it is not. (Except possibly alignment issues.)
- sidlls 9y agoThat's not quite right though, is it? Nothing prevents one from "creative" interpretation of memory in, say, C, either, but it would be difficult to argue C is untyped.
- krallja 9y agoThe C type system prevents you from accidental creative interpretation of memory. You wouldn't say Rust is untyped just because of the `unsafe` keyword either. No such type safety exists in assembly, except that certain opcode-register combinations are prohibited.