3 ms·

But "interface bugs" are the least of our problems. As evidenced by most bug queues that I've peeked at.

willtim 9y ago
No true. I have to try and reverse engineer types whenever I use JSON APIs. The documentation provides only "samples". I literally have to experiment to find out what works with no guarantee it will keep working.
always_good 9y ago
I don't know about that. How about the simple interface of "shouldn't be null".
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- wellpast 9y ago
  If null pointer exceptions are the most of your problems then I think you're doing pretty well. In my experience NPEs are the easiest bugs to root out and fix.
  - willtim 9y ago
    The point is that NPEs are a solved problem, just not in Java and Clojure. I am better able to stay focused on the real problems, as I never have to root out and fix bugs like this.
    - wtetzner 9y ago
      Not to mention that the ease of fixing the bug has little to do with the cost of the bug showing up in production.
      - wellpast 9y ago
        I can do all kinds of things to prevent bugs showing up in production. I once worked on a mission-critical piece of software in which the entire team was brought in to do a page-by-page code review for all newly written code. Of course, the cost outweighs the benefit in this case for most industry software that can afford a few bugs at the extreme expense of (this kind of) code review. Now the question is: are the static verification methods you're using (null-checking, type-checking, range-checking, what-have-you) worth the effort it takes to apply them over time? And if you say yes, do you believe they are so worth it that they should be applied across your codebase always, without discretion? Most static programming languages force you (or make it hard for you not) to do this verification across the board.
        wtetzner 9y ago
        > And if you say yes, do you believe they are so worth it that they should be applied across your codebase always, without discretion? Most static programming languages force you (or make it hard for you not) to do this verification across the board. Yes, actually, I don't find these things to be a particularly high burden, and the benefit, in my experience, easily outweighs it. When you're writing code, you have to think about what kinds of things will be passed to a given function, whether the compiler checks it or not. So I find having the compiler check mundane things like this lowers my cognitive load, because I don't have to worry so much about what to do if I get a null (fail, handle it in some way, etc.). I will agree, though, that the style of programming with maps so prevalent in Clojure makes a lot of sense in some programs. However, even then, there is a typing discipline that fits (row types).
        pklausler 9y ago
        Honest question: have you ever written a large computer program in a programming language descended from ML (SML, OCaml, Haskell, &c.)?
        wellpast 9y ago
        No I haven't. And, depending on how long life turns out to be, maybe I'll get to. But. I have built plenty of large software systems. And the source of cost in those systems is always -- by at least a factor of a 100 -- was coupling and imprecise semantics. These two problems are a function of the experience and training (and value system) of the programmer building them, and programming languages can do very little to save a system from these plights. (It might be that a static programming language can help here inasmuch as it slows down the programmer from producing too much code, but I realize that's arguable and also that I'm making a wicked joke.) Still. All computers ask is for semantic precision and you don't need a static type verification to get precision. So clearly static type verification is unnecessary for producing programs that work. And clearly statically-typed everywhere PLs are asking the programmer to do extra work. That's prima facie true. So the burden is really on the MLer/Haskeller to prove that that extra work is giving overall delivery throughput to the programming team. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But I'm waiting for the clearly thought out justification. Haven't heard it yet.

No true. I have to try and reverse engineer types whenever I use JSON APIs. The documentation provides only "samples". I literally have to experiment to find out what works with no guarantee it will keep working.

always_good 9y ago

I don't know about that. How about the simple interface of "shouldn't be null".

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
wellpast 9y ago
If null pointer exceptions are the most of your problems then I think you're doing pretty well. In my experience NPEs are the easiest bugs to root out and fix.
- willtim 9y ago
  The point is that NPEs are a solved problem, just not in Java and Clojure. I am better able to stay focused on the real problems, as I never have to root out and fix bugs like this.
  - wtetzner 9y ago
    Not to mention that the ease of fixing the bug has little to do with the cost of the bug showing up in production.
    - wellpast 9y ago
      I can do all kinds of things to prevent bugs showing up in production. I once worked on a mission-critical piece of software in which the entire team was brought in to do a page-by-page code review for all newly written code. Of course, the cost outweighs the benefit in this case for most industry software that can afford a few bugs at the extreme expense of (this kind of) code review. Now the question is: are the static verification methods you're using (null-checking, type-checking, range-checking, what-have-you) worth the effort it takes to apply them over time? And if you say yes, do you believe they are so worth it that they should be applied across your codebase always, without discretion? Most static programming languages force you (or make it hard for you not) to do this verification across the board.
      - wtetzner 9y ago
        > And if you say yes, do you believe they are so worth it that they should be applied across your codebase always, without discretion? Most static programming languages force you (or make it hard for you not) to do this verification across the board. Yes, actually, I don't find these things to be a particularly high burden, and the benefit, in my experience, easily outweighs it. When you're writing code, you have to think about what kinds of things will be passed to a given function, whether the compiler checks it or not. So I find having the compiler check mundane things like this lowers my cognitive load, because I don't have to worry so much about what to do if I get a null (fail, handle it in some way, etc.). I will agree, though, that the style of programming with maps so prevalent in Clojure makes a lot of sense in some programs. However, even then, there is a typing discipline that fits (row types).
      - pklausler 9y ago
        Honest question: have you ever written a large computer program in a programming language descended from ML (SML, OCaml, Haskell, &c.)?
        wellpast 9y ago
        No I haven't. And, depending on how long life turns out to be, maybe I'll get to. But. I have built plenty of large software systems. And the source of cost in those systems is always -- by at least a factor of a 100 -- was coupling and imprecise semantics. These two problems are a function of the experience and training (and value system) of the programmer building them, and programming languages can do very little to save a system from these plights. (It might be that a static programming language can help here inasmuch as it slows down the programmer from producing too much code, but I realize that's arguable and also that I'm making a wicked joke.) Still. All computers ask is for semantic precision and you don't need a static type verification to get precision. So clearly static type verification is unnecessary for producing programs that work. And clearly statically-typed everywhere PLs are asking the programmer to do extra work. That's prima facie true. So the burden is really on the MLer/Haskeller to prove that that extra work is giving overall delivery throughput to the programming team. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But I'm waiting for the clearly thought out justification. Haven't heard it yet.