3 ms·
I think you are missing the point of type systems. Our current economy doesn't value correctness at all. Code is rushed out, and usually live longer than it was
by Ericson2314 6y ago
I think you are missing the point of type systems. Our current economy doesn't value correctness at all. Code is rushed out, and usually live longer than it was designed too. This mimicks the the largest infrastructure debt of America (and to a lesser extent, the western world as a whole).
But the same shoddy system is also constantly changing the requirements, precisely because nothing is built for posterity and there's tons of make-work churn. Good type systems make code far easier to refactor, and refactoring (as opposed to slapped-on new code) is the only way to handle shifting requirements without being crushed under ones own weight.
- alexbanks 6y agoI'm not missing anything. I'm well aware of the value of type systems, as I am our current cultural decision to value speed over correctness. I'm not confident that average level developers are able to ship features in Rust as quickly as they would in Go, which is the root of my point. Those building tools, which generally do not have the same success metrics with respect to speed and correctness, should use the language with a focus on safety and correctness. Those whose positions do not lend themselves to safety and correctness should not use that tool.
- zozbot234 6y ago> I'm not confident that average level developers are able to ship features in Rust as quickly as they would in Go Even if this was a genuine concern, they should still use Rust. Because it will be far easier to refactor the code that they ship into something that is safe and correct, compared to rewriting a Go codebase.
- alexbanks 6y agoWe can agree to disagree. The whole point of my post is that I do not agree with your statement.