5 ms·

> Can't do that with static languages either. Call it a type (or class), call it a parsing function, ultimately the result is the same. You need something to en

> Can't do that with static languages either. Call it a type (or class), call it a parsing function, ultimately the result is the same. You need something to ensure that it is an url. Those exist in dynamically typed languages and are not obviated in static ones. In a loosely typed language you cannot have compiler-level enforcement that a variable has been produced by a factory function that ensures that the passed in variable has been parsed and determined valid. Additionally in a loosely typed language you do not even get the OPTION of labeling a value as "validated/unvalidated", you only have one option: Pass a string, and expect the new developer to read upstream code to understand where the variable came from. > In short, ultimately everything you said was just, like, your opinion, man. Is it my opinion though? Or did I pull it straight out of Building Secure and Reliably Systems, a book written by Google engineers to express industry best practice for developing software at a scale?

luord 6y ago
My previous comment was merely an attempt to mention how participating in this flamewar leads nowhere. I'm certainly not about to get into it by discussing details of the good and the bad and even the necessity of compile time checks of whether a string is a url. Hundreds of books have been written on the matter, and the results are still inconclusive. > Is it my opinion though? Or did I pull it straight out of Building Secure and Reliably Systems, a book written by Google engineers to express industry best practice for developing software at a scale? Yes and yes, you happen to share their opinion. Now, should we pretend that appeals to authority turn an opinion into fact now? If so, to whose authority should we appeal? Theirs? The different google engineers who work in more dynamic languages? Hell, designers of dynamic languages who have worked at Google? The people who designed and work in LISP or any of its derivates? Whose authority weighs more? Or maybe we should acknowledge that appeals to authority hold no real decisive value in deciding something like this, and instead contribute to studies trying to gauge how effective different type systems actually are. Except that even those turn into flamewars: https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/this-is-how-science-happens/ https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/this-is-how-science-happens...

luord 6y ago

My previous comment was merely an attempt to mention how participating in this flamewar leads nowhere. I'm certainly not about to get into it by discussing details of the good and the bad and even the necessity of compile time checks of whether a string is a url. Hundreds of books have been written on the matter, and the results are still inconclusive. > Is it my opinion though? Or did I pull it straight out of Building Secure and Reliably Systems, a book written by Google engineers to express industry best practice for developing software at a scale? Yes and yes, you happen to share their opinion. Now, should we pretend that appeals to authority turn an opinion into fact now? If so, to whose authority should we appeal? Theirs? The different google engineers who work in more dynamic languages? Hell, designers of dynamic languages who have worked at Google? The people who designed and work in LISP or any of its derivates? Whose authority weighs more? Or maybe we should acknowledge that appeals to authority hold no real decisive value in deciding something like this, and instead contribute to studies trying to gauge how effective different type systems actually are. Except that even those turn into flamewars: https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/this-is-how-science-happens/ https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/this-is-how-science-happens...