4 ms·

> Other benefits of strong static type systems are compiler-enforced documentation (through types) and ease of refactoring. I do agree if "compiler-enforced" i

> Other benefits of strong static type systems are compiler-enforced documentation (through types) and ease of refactoring. I do agree if "compiler-enforced" is your target then by definition you'll choose compiler enforcement. For me the cost is too high. I'd rather solve my documentation needs through other far less costly means. > ...ease of refactoring. This is one of the lies espoused by the strong static typer. The claim here usually is that the compiler will tell you where you're broken through each step of the refactor. The irony is that the effect is the opposite of what is claimed: requiring a refactor to be formally/machine-verified correct through each iteration is a huge drag on refactoring. In a non-strongly typed language I can iteratively refactor and execute parts of my program even if a formal verified/strong-type prover would reject the program. This equates to way better throughput/speed over the formal static verifier/typer. Formal static verification may give you a host of benefits but in what most of us are doing Time is the most important resource by far. And formal verification/strong-type systems are downright hostile to Time. Which is especially offensive because the claims of stability can be readily achieved through much more efficient and agile techniques than formal verification.

Hercuros 7y ago
Things are of course not so black-and-white. It is hard to discuss these things at a general or abstract level, since things are often different in practice than they are in theory. But my point was to show that there are actual reasonable arguments that you can make in favor of and against static typing, without being disingenuous. For example, you can argue that static types hurt more than they help during refactoring, but the claim is not so obvious that anyone who says otherwise is simply a static typing zealot.

Hercuros 7y ago

Things are of course not so black-and-white. It is hard to discuss these things at a general or abstract level, since things are often different in practice than they are in theory. But my point was to show that there are actual reasonable arguments that you can make in favor of and against static typing, without being disingenuous. For example, you can argue that static types hurt more than they help during refactoring, but the claim is not so obvious that anyone who says otherwise is simply a static typing zealot.