3 ms·

> They don't have time to read and understand code. Where does it say that. It actually says the opposite quite clearly if you cared to post the whole quote an

> They don't have time to read and understand code. Where does it say that. It actually says the opposite quite clearly if you cared to post the whole quote and not just what supports what you would like it to. > They addressed one of the issues with a compile step, eg slower feedback loop. Can you explain to me how faster feedback from static types that they, a concept which the article reiterates again and again, leads to a slower feedback loop. Clearly the article and many more like it say that the feedback loop actually speeds up with static analysis since you don't have to run the code to get the feedback. I'm not sure if you actually want to objectively reason.

z3t4 8y ago
It's not wise for me to continue the discussion if you are going to resort to mudslinging. I can not simply explain something at the sandpit level, especially not to someone in an highly emotional state. [this part contains sarcasm] If you read between the lines in the article, and I've read it in other Facebook articles too (between the lines), understanding code is a problem for Facebook, it's against their principle of "go fast and break things". Good that they are not into the self driving cars business :P [/this part contains sarcasm] Traditional web development is a bit different from traditional development with long compile times. In PHP for example, the code is evaluated on the go, for every request. Development goes like this: Make change in .php file, (upload the file), reload the browser to see what happened. If you add a type-checker between, before they see what happened, it will slow down the development process. This is how static types and type checking slows down development by adding a compilation step. Facebook claim they fixed it, but it's still a concern that need to be addressed when adding static types to other interpreted languages. I do acknowledge that tooling allows you to see type errors directly in the editor/IDE before you reload the browser. You can however get that without static typing, via inference. (type annotation do make building such tool easier). It's however likely that the bug would be discovered during the manual or automatic testing anyway, so you have to evaluate if the added complexity to dev-ops from changing the language to add static typing, and adding a compilation step, is actually worth it.
- externalreality 8y ago
  This has gotten silly.
- spapas82 8y ago
  Actually the most common php workflow I've seen is: Edit php files directly in production, save, refresh. If you see a blank page (php syntax error, returs HTTP 500) start sweating and quickly check apache error.log. Repeat until syntax error is fixed (and initial feature is implemented). Or to rephrase an old proverb: Real php developers do it on production only.

z3t4 8y ago

It's not wise for me to continue the discussion if you are going to resort to mudslinging. I can not simply explain something at the sandpit level, especially not to someone in an highly emotional state. [this part contains sarcasm] If you read between the lines in the article, and I've read it in other Facebook articles too (between the lines), understanding code is a problem for Facebook, it's against their principle of "go fast and break things". Good that they are not into the self driving cars business :P [/this part contains sarcasm] Traditional web development is a bit different from traditional development with long compile times. In PHP for example, the code is evaluated on the go, for every request. Development goes like this: Make change in .php file, (upload the file), reload the browser to see what happened. If you add a type-checker between, before they see what happened, it will slow down the development process. This is how static types and type checking slows down development by adding a compilation step. Facebook claim they fixed it, but it's still a concern that need to be addressed when adding static types to other interpreted languages. I do acknowledge that tooling allows you to see type errors directly in the editor/IDE before you reload the browser. You can however get that without static typing, via inference. (type annotation do make building such tool easier). It's however likely that the bug would be discovered during the manual or automatic testing anyway, so you have to evaluate if the added complexity to dev-ops from changing the language to add static typing, and adding a compilation step, is actually worth it.

externalreality 8y ago
This has gotten silly.
spapas82 8y ago
Actually the most common php workflow I've seen is: Edit php files directly in production, save, refresh. If you see a blank page (php syntax error, returs HTTP 500) start sweating and quickly check apache error.log. Repeat until syntax error is fixed (and initial feature is implemented). Or to rephrase an old proverb: Real php developers do it on production only.