3 ms·

I agree. People forget that you can't avoid types. It's the shape of the data. Whether they are static or dynamic/uni, you still have them, and you have to deal

I agree. People forget that you can't avoid types. It's the shape of the data. Whether they are static or dynamic/uni, you still have them, and you have to deal with them. I'd much rather deal with it upfront, statically, at compile time. I find it works much better for me, and it helps me model my program. The compiler is a tool I use to ask questions about my program, and we work together to build the shape together.

jstimpfle 7y ago
> It's the shape of the data. This is how far types are required to go. (And not even strictly - sometimes it makes sense to switch on the shape dynamically). The hype around types in contemporary languages goes far beyond mere shape. And that can lead to unnecessary program structure which can block further development.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]