4 ms·
The lack of type checking must have cost way more than standing up Golang services when the time came that you actually had customers though right?
by rogerkirkness 7y ago
The lack of type checking must have cost way more than standing up Golang services when the time came that you actually had customers though right?
- hkt 7y agoPeople managed with dynamically typed languages for a long, long time in building pretty vast services. Static typing has its merits but it really depends on what you're building - if you're a bank, it offers excellent guarantees. If you're building something smaller scale or lower impact, you can cope if you're logical and have good tests.
- rogerkirkness 7y agoMy understanding is that 1. Sooner or later you end up having to check all the types in your tests which means 2. You end up having the same number of lines of code in each, one where the type is declared in the model, which realistically is easier to document and to keep your data consistent, and the other where the only time you verify it is in the tests, or worse both tests and runtime, in which case by definition it's more lines of code. If lines of code is a proxy for bugs, and you build on something that doesn't have type safety, wouldn't that just increase your bugs across two very important immutable dimensions of computing? Stripe has a type checking team now...