3 ms·
That’s obviously true, but you seem to be conflating refactored code with tooling support for refactoring. Done by a tool or not, the refactoring in principle
by josteink 8y ago
That’s obviously true, but you seem to be conflating refactored code with tooling support for refactoring.
Done by a tool or not, the refactoring in principle remains the same. The tool merely automates the transformations which defines the refactoring.
And in that sense types isn’t really essential to refactoring at all.
- BurningFrog 8y agoI'm not conflating anything. Just stating a fact.
- twblalock 8y agoTypes make it much, much easier to write useful refactoring tools, and to verify that the tools did the right thing.
- exceptione 8y agoIn theory it might be non-essential, but in practice it might mean that refactorings might be unfeasable or too costly in non-typed codebases. The more I think about it, the less it makes sense to bother about refactoring when you did not bother about type level guarantees in the first place.