4 ms·

I believe you're exaggerating the frequency that the compiler rejects valid programs. It happens, but no more frequently than random runtime type errors occur i

by hderms 7y ago

I believe you're exaggerating the frequency that the compiler rejects valid programs. It happens, but no more frequently than random runtime type errors occur in dynamic code. In any case, one can just as easily argue that the value of static types come not just when the code is first written, but under the legion of modifications that need to occur. Not to mention how self documenting it is which also aids modification. Some people just don't like static typing, which is fine, but making the statement that it's categorically worse is hard to defend.

wellpast 7y ago
This is not an opinion thing. If you’re saying that type checkers can reject code at no worse than the same rate as dynamic runtimes then you are just plain wrong. In any case the burden is on you to show this with the slightest sketch of a proof to how this is possible. And what is this magic type system that can do this, bc it sounds like some super AI. The reason I’m confident in my objections is because this is what I get from static typing fundamentalists: never a concession as to its cons and costs. Is it that static typers can’t see the relative costs bc they are not using the full power of dynamic languages?
- mbrodersen 7y ago
  > This is not an opinion thing. Of course it is an opinion thing. > never a concession as to its cons and costs. Pretty much what I get all the time from people who don't know how to use type systems productively, and then think that because they can't nobody else can. If types doesn't work for you, don't use them. They work for me so I use them.
  - wellpast 7y ago
    I can use strong typing productively. I can use dynamic systems _way_ more productively. When all things are equal, the impedance is not from lack of skill. It is staring at you straight in the face: it's a rules-based type prover that -- by definition -- significantly restricts the set of valid programs. This is the definition of a type prover. The argument should be that the value of this restriction outweighs the cost. But no one is yet making this claim. Which should make one wonder.
    - mbrodersen 7y ago
      > But no one is yet making this claim. Which should make one wonder. I for one are most definitely making that claim. Based on 35+ years of programming in both single typed and typed programming languages. But clearly your experience is different.
- mbrodersen 7y ago
  > the full power of dynamic languages? There is nothing you can do in a dynamic language you can't do in a typed language. There is no "special power" that only dynamic languages have. If you truly believe that dynamic languages have "special powers" that typed languages can't have then I recommend studying a bit of basic computer science. Starting with the Turing Machine or Lambda Calculus.
  - wellpast 7y ago
    > There is nothing you can do in a dynamic language you can't do in a typed language. There is nothing one can't do in assembly that you can't do it in a higher-level PL. The argument is not what one can or can't do. The argument is that one world (dynamism) allows for higher throughput than a static-checked environment. This can be discussed but the "can do" argument is of no interest. You "can do" anything given enough time. One doesn't even need a programming language. You can manually execute instructions by hand. But this is not the discussion.
    - mbrodersen 7y ago
      > The argument is that one world (dynamism) allows for higher throughput than a static-checked environment. I have programmed in both dynamic languages and typed languages for 35+ years. And I am most definitely more productive using a typed language. Otherwise I wouldn't. So I wonder why our experiences are so different?

by hderms 7y ago

wellpast 7y ago

This is not an opinion thing. If you’re saying that type checkers can reject code at no worse than the same rate as dynamic runtimes then you are just plain wrong. In any case the burden is on you to show this with the slightest sketch of a proof to how this is possible. And what is this magic type system that can do this, bc it sounds like some super AI. The reason I’m confident in my objections is because this is what I get from static typing fundamentalists: never a concession as to its cons and costs. Is it that static typers can’t see the relative costs bc they are not using the full power of dynamic languages?

mbrodersen 7y ago
> This is not an opinion thing. Of course it is an opinion thing. > never a concession as to its cons and costs. Pretty much what I get all the time from people who don't know how to use type systems productively, and then think that because they can't nobody else can. If types doesn't work for you, don't use them. They work for me so I use them.
- wellpast 7y ago
  I can use strong typing productively. I can use dynamic systems _way_ more productively. When all things are equal, the impedance is not from lack of skill. It is staring at you straight in the face: it's a rules-based type prover that -- by definition -- significantly restricts the set of valid programs. This is the definition of a type prover. The argument should be that the value of this restriction outweighs the cost. But no one is yet making this claim. Which should make one wonder.
  - mbrodersen 7y ago
    > But no one is yet making this claim. Which should make one wonder. I for one are most definitely making that claim. Based on 35+ years of programming in both single typed and typed programming languages. But clearly your experience is different.
mbrodersen 7y ago
> the full power of dynamic languages? There is nothing you can do in a dynamic language you can't do in a typed language. There is no "special power" that only dynamic languages have. If you truly believe that dynamic languages have "special powers" that typed languages can't have then I recommend studying a bit of basic computer science. Starting with the Turing Machine or Lambda Calculus.
- wellpast 7y ago
  > There is nothing you can do in a dynamic language you can't do in a typed language. There is nothing one can't do in assembly that you can't do it in a higher-level PL. The argument is not what one can or can't do. The argument is that one world (dynamism) allows for higher throughput than a static-checked environment. This can be discussed but the "can do" argument is of no interest. You "can do" anything given enough time. One doesn't even need a programming language. You can manually execute instructions by hand. But this is not the discussion.
  - mbrodersen 7y ago
    > The argument is that one world (dynamism) allows for higher throughput than a static-checked environment. I have programmed in both dynamic languages and typed languages for 35+ years. And I am most definitely more productive using a typed language. Otherwise I wouldn't. So I wonder why our experiences are so different?