4 ms·

What languages have you worked with before, with static types? If it's something like Java, C, C++, etc, then I can see your point, but if you pick any of the

by Tehnix 8y ago

What languages have you worked with before, with static types? If it's something like Java, C, C++, etc, then I can see your point, but if you pick any of the languages with type inference (like Elm, Haskell, PureScript, OCaml, F#, etc), then you rarely actually have to write types. Working with the type system is a different way of working. It's more beneficial to see the compiler as a helping friend, instead of an adversary that is just there to complain. Some interesting reads might be: - http://elm-lang.org/blog/compilers-as-assistants http://elm-lang.org/blog/compilers-as-assistants - https://matthew.brecknell.net/post/hole-driven-haskell/ https://matthew.brecknell.net/post/hole-driven-haskell/ - http://bitemyapp.com/posts/2017-09-23-please-stop-using-typed-holes.html http://bitemyapp.com/posts/2017-09-23-please-stop-using-type... Personally, I honestly hate every time I don't have a time system to rely on. I don't make any false pretenses that I have the whole program in my head 100% of the time. I don't want to have to think about things that a computer can solve for me, hence I like my compiler to do as much work as possible. As for unit testing, a type system is never supposed to remove the need for unit testing, and if you see anyone promote a language because of this, they are probably (hopefully) over simplifying. What it does do though, is significantly cut down the need for certain types of tests, since you can model so much more logic via types (ADTs, Union types, etc), and get it checked by the compiler. As an aside: I simply do not believe you've never run into a type error, unless you've only written projects that 100 lines of code, and even then it's quite easy to run into type errors.

pg_bot 8y ago
The languages that I've used with static typing are Java and Objective-C so perhaps those languages have negatively impacted my perception of type systems. I can do more research on other languages to see what they have to offer. I used to run into type errors when I first started programming but I've learned how to eliminate them by changing my programming style. I add a lot of constraints to how I program, and follow a system of naming conventions that make it obvious what type something is. I take a lot of pride in my work and try my best to build maintainable systems that can be extended easily or run forever without changes. I typically write around 250K-350K lines of code per year in mission critical and highly regulated industries. If you want to learn how to write systems that have zero defects research companies that are known for quality design and apply their principles to your own work. I would suggest Netflix, and Toyota as the two companies that I would emulate.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  > I add a lot of constraints to how I program, and follow a system of naming conventions that make it obvious what type something is. And you find it unbelievable that someone would prefer that the compiler simply enforce these conventions?
  - pg_bot 8y ago
    I don't find it unbelievable, I just personally don't get the appeal because you have to do that work when you name things anyway. e.g. I would never expect a variable named "first_name" to be anything other than a string. It's also fairly easy to handle most type conversions so I would rather be permissive in what I accept (to a reasonable point) than be rigid.
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      Well what are the properties of config_options or app_user or objects like these? Is it even documented, or am I forced to scan the entire method trying to figure out?
      - pg_bot 8y ago
        Typically I would initialize an AppUser object and print out its default representation. You can quickly find info on an object by doing something like: AppUser.new => prints all properties of the object with nil values AppUser.instance_methods - ActiveRecord::Base.instance_methods => prints all unique instance methods on that class values config_options is extremely generic but I would expect that it is a Hash of key/value pairs. Given the fact that it has options in the name you are likely going to have to look it up regardless as you have multiple choices when using it. I'd expect some documentation if it is truly configurable, or you can transparently look at the method signature if it uses keyword args. (say for a library that handles formatting currency) Quickly reading other people's code is a definite skill. While it can be a pain to do, it is worthwhile since the code is the only real source of truth.

by Tehnix 8y ago

pg_bot 8y ago

The languages that I've used with static typing are Java and Objective-C so perhaps those languages have negatively impacted my perception of type systems. I can do more research on other languages to see what they have to offer. I used to run into type errors when I first started programming but I've learned how to eliminate them by changing my programming style. I add a lot of constraints to how I program, and follow a system of naming conventions that make it obvious what type something is. I take a lot of pride in my work and try my best to build maintainable systems that can be extended easily or run forever without changes. I typically write around 250K-350K lines of code per year in mission critical and highly regulated industries. If you want to learn how to write systems that have zero defects research companies that are known for quality design and apply their principles to your own work. I would suggest Netflix, and Toyota as the two companies that I would emulate.

emodendroket 8y ago
> I add a lot of constraints to how I program, and follow a system of naming conventions that make it obvious what type something is. And you find it unbelievable that someone would prefer that the compiler simply enforce these conventions?
- pg_bot 8y ago
  I don't find it unbelievable, I just personally don't get the appeal because you have to do that work when you name things anyway. e.g. I would never expect a variable named "first_name" to be anything other than a string. It's also fairly easy to handle most type conversions so I would rather be permissive in what I accept (to a reasonable point) than be rigid.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    Well what are the properties of config_options or app_user or objects like these? Is it even documented, or am I forced to scan the entire method trying to figure out?
    - pg_bot 8y ago
      Typically I would initialize an AppUser object and print out its default representation. You can quickly find info on an object by doing something like: AppUser.new => prints all properties of the object with nil values AppUser.instance_methods - ActiveRecord::Base.instance_methods => prints all unique instance methods on that class values config_options is extremely generic but I would expect that it is a Hash of key/value pairs. Given the fact that it has options in the name you are likely going to have to look it up regardless as you have multiple choices when using it. I'd expect some documentation if it is truly configurable, or you can transparently look at the method signature if it uses keyword args. (say for a library that handles formatting currency) Quickly reading other people's code is a definite skill. While it can be a pain to do, it is worthwhile since the code is the only real source of truth.