6 ms·

It may depend on age, overall knowledge of CS (including its history) and level of experience with multiple programming languages. Maybe the article itself does

It may depend on age, overall knowledge of CS (including its history) and level of experience with multiple programming languages. Maybe the article itself does not literally support the idea, but it might still be inferred from it. It might also be the resulting discussion and responses, or additional field experience, that might give rise to this conclusion. I personally think the whole typing movement of the last decade has been mostly a red herring. What I mean with that is that it appears to try solve the "wrong" problem. While strong typing certainly can solve a whole class of bugs, my impression is that where this has been required most, ended up always situations where horrible overall design and code quality were the actual main problems (not typing). Coming from a (embedded) assembly and C direction myself, I have nothing against strong typing. But what has consistently rubbed me the wrong way about this modern strong typing "movement", both intuitively and rationally, is how it appears to fix something that is essentially broken on a whole different level. No amount of strong typing is going to fix that. I know, nothing much actionable or concrete here. Just my opinion. Regardless, this old geezer certainly agrees with the overall impression that "unsound" is pretty much the state of this art, these days.

bitwize 6y ago
Static typing takes the burden of verifying certain forms of program correctness off the programmer and puts it in the compiler where it belongs, thus expanding the space of correct code the same programmer can write per unit cognitive load. The more kinds of things you check for in the type system (static lifetimes in Rust, for instance), the more benefits you get. It doesn't serve as a substitute for good taste, because while a mediocre programmer's reach is extended, a great programmer's reach is even further extended. Mediocre programmers can thus meaningfully contribute to embedded and kernel-level code under the tutelage of a good programmer without risking blowing the whole thing up, and increase their skill.
- elmo2you 6y ago
  I get you point(s) and I guess you mean well. Statically typed languages do essentially what you said. They mostly (if not only) move data validation from run time to compile time. In dynamically typed languages, this often doesn't happen in the first place, while with static typing you are pretty much forced to. I have a little over 30 years of programming experience, the majority of it in statically typed languages (and quite a few). I have absolutely nothing against them (on the contrary). I still remember the rise in popularity of dynamically types languages, and how/why they were promoted. Faster development and code simplification, by only doing data validation where it was really needed (at run time), among them. Whether that was a good development, depends on where you stand. Do you care about correct software? Are you a business making software for profit, minimizing development costs? Are you part of a constantly growing market, where programmers who properly understand CS fundamentals are increasingly harder to find (or just more expensive)? Either way, to me it's no surprise that dynamically typed languages became as popular as they did, nor would I say that it is totally without merit (depending on your perspective). Sadly, it's also a heck of a lot easier to make utter garbage with dynamically typed languages. Not in the least because a programmer would no longer be confronted with their intellectual excrement at compile time. Unless all edge cases are properly tested during dev time, those usually become "user problems" during run time. People like me have frequently warned consultancy clients about the dangers of technologies and languages based on dynamically typed data, but more often than not other factors that were deemed more important. Fair enough, at least from a business perspective. Maybe not so much from an ethic and/or legal liability standpoint, but somehow the software industry has managed to create itself a rather unique immunity from legal consequence as the result of horrendous software quality (so good luck selling a need for better software). Sure, the contemporary static typing movement (as I like to call it) does appear to have genuine intentions to assist programmer (some of which should probably not even be allowed to code) to write substantially less buggy code. But I certainly do not agree with this idea that static typing will extend both mediocre and great programmers. In fact, if any of contemporary statically typed languages (or worse: ad-hoc extensions to dynamically typed languages) make somebody write substantially better software, then I firmly believe that this person either has fundamental CS related problems, or is being rushed/pressured too much to ever produce anything of considerable quality. I sincerely doubt that a statically typed language (or language add-on) will ever fix either of those. Such programmers will nonetheless still be good enough for a lot of regular programming gigs though. But, for the love of the gods, please keep those people miles away from anything embedded or kernel-level code. Again, I think you mean nothing but good. You may even know far more on the subject than I can expect, just based on your response. Either way, I certainly don't mean to offend you. Still, whenever I read a response like your's, I can't escape the feeling that it sounds more like a repeated mantra than that in comes from a deep understanding of the actual problem, including its long/complicated history.
  - bitwize 6y ago
    > Faster development and code simplification, by only doing data validation where it was really needed (at run time), among them. This is a trap many programmers fall into. You should be parsing, not validating[0]. If you are ingesting JSON data, for instance, what you need is not a generic JSON parser but a parser that only accepts JSON representations that map to a particular, static data type and throws parse errors where in a dynamic language you might find "validation errors", for example, an unknown data field or a field value of the wrong type. Getting the types right early doesn't substantially slow you down overall, and yields a result that's much, much easier to get correct. Any such slowdown is a greater "capex" in the form of initial development, that's more than offset by much, much lower "opex" in the form of maintenance. > In fact, if any of contemporary statically typed languages (or worse: ad-hoc extensions to dynamically typed languages) make somebody write substantially better software, then I firmly believe that this person either has fundamental CS related problems, or is being rushed/pressured too much to ever produce anything of considerable quality. I sincerely doubt that a statically typed language (or language add-on) will ever fix either of those. This is wrong, and it's wrong for "theory vs. reality" reasons. Take one of the languages in your background: C. What you see may be true of a hypothetical programmer who knows all the arcane rules to C and can avoid tripping one of C's many, many UB landmines the first time, every time. But most programmers in the real world are human beings who may not have had their coffee. And they are going to make mistakes and unwittingly trip UB landmines. And this is as true of great C programmers as it is of beginners. You could build some strong rules around C, such as "allocate memory as little as humanly possible" and "avoid threading unless you can justify needing the performance gains" that will help programmers stay well clear of the traps inherent to C programming. Or you can switch to Rust, and fearlessly write code that allocates memory and even threaded code, because Rust's type system guarantees memory safety and a lack of data races. [0] https://lexi-lambda.github.io/blog/2019/11/05/parse-don-t-validate/ https://lexi-lambda.github.io/blog/2019/11/05/parse-don-t-va...
    - elmo2you 6y ago
      > This is a trap many programmers fall into. You should be parsing, not validating. Maybe it was an unfortunate choice of words on my part. Additionally, and I only meant to indicated how it was promoted/advertised, rather than make any statement about weather it was a sound argument. Either way, at the end of the day, a parser is a validator all the same. Sure, more (domain) specific parsers indeed make better code (duh). That's true for both compile time and run time parsing. But how often, in real life business situation, is there enough time to create a solid architecture and fully fleshed out (domain) specific (run time, or compile time) parsers? Again, I'm not disputing that statically typed languages may have a potential for creating more structurally healthy code. However, from my experience it still takes a hell of a lot of time and effort (for which there often is no room in real life business situations). Dynamically typed languages often create seriously flawed software, no doubt about that. But I'm convinced that this is more because many programmers just don't do what they actually should be doing in any case (in any language). Statically types language can alleviate that problem a little, by forcing programmers to think more about what they should already be thinking about in the first place. But it is not a magic bullet. I'm not even going to discuss the downsides from overly specified/specific software code. > This is wrong, and it's wrong for "theory vs. reality" reasons. In case you missed it: my main gripe with all of this is that I just can not find any of all these great improvements, that evangelists keep pushing, in actual real world examples (at least not within my personal experience). Yet here you try to convince me that my point it too much theory and telling me a story about how real world programming actually works. Seriously? I mentioned C to indicate from which direction in the industry I come from, nothing more. Well, maybe also to indicate that I've been doing this for some time now. No need to tell me how programmers work (plenty of experience with that), or making excuses for how it's just human nature for them to fuck up if they aren't held by their hand. I might have bought that kind of bullshit 25 years go. There have been plenty of attempts, purporting to to give programmers better tools and assist them writing better software. Most of them with only good intentions. Nothing new about that, about as old as commercial software itself. However, I've seen a rather depressing trend how all of those hardly ever held up in reality, over time. Whether that is because the knowledge level of programmers constantly degrades, or if it is because such solutions promote laziness, that might be more of a philosophical discussion and hard to establish as fact. I find it at least a bit ironic though, how I apparently am being schooled on how I "just don't get it right", by what to me sounds and smells a hell of a lot like theoretical evangelical drivel itself. In fact, at this point I can't help but recall an iconic argument about how plants crave Brawndo, because of the electrolytes. Keep on programming the way you do. If you are a good programmer, it shouldn't matter which language or tools you use. I wish you nothing but the best and good luck. Time will tell if Rust will survive the hype and actually deliver what it has been promising for a while. Maybe it indeed will. I'm not holding my breath though. Especially not since (nontransparent) corporate influence/control on languages and tools in becoming an ever growing factor (with all kind of problems associated with it).

bitwize 6y ago

Static typing takes the burden of verifying certain forms of program correctness off the programmer and puts it in the compiler where it belongs, thus expanding the space of correct code the same programmer can write per unit cognitive load. The more kinds of things you check for in the type system (static lifetimes in Rust, for instance), the more benefits you get. It doesn't serve as a substitute for good taste, because while a mediocre programmer's reach is extended, a great programmer's reach is even further extended. Mediocre programmers can thus meaningfully contribute to embedded and kernel-level code under the tutelage of a good programmer without risking blowing the whole thing up, and increase their skill.

elmo2you 6y ago
I get you point(s) and I guess you mean well. Statically typed languages do essentially what you said. They mostly (if not only) move data validation from run time to compile time. In dynamically typed languages, this often doesn't happen in the first place, while with static typing you are pretty much forced to. I have a little over 30 years of programming experience, the majority of it in statically typed languages (and quite a few). I have absolutely nothing against them (on the contrary). I still remember the rise in popularity of dynamically types languages, and how/why they were promoted. Faster development and code simplification, by only doing data validation where it was really needed (at run time), among them. Whether that was a good development, depends on where you stand. Do you care about correct software? Are you a business making software for profit, minimizing development costs? Are you part of a constantly growing market, where programmers who properly understand CS fundamentals are increasingly harder to find (or just more expensive)? Either way, to me it's no surprise that dynamically typed languages became as popular as they did, nor would I say that it is totally without merit (depending on your perspective). Sadly, it's also a heck of a lot easier to make utter garbage with dynamically typed languages. Not in the least because a programmer would no longer be confronted with their intellectual excrement at compile time. Unless all edge cases are properly tested during dev time, those usually become "user problems" during run time. People like me have frequently warned consultancy clients about the dangers of technologies and languages based on dynamically typed data, but more often than not other factors that were deemed more important. Fair enough, at least from a business perspective. Maybe not so much from an ethic and/or legal liability standpoint, but somehow the software industry has managed to create itself a rather unique immunity from legal consequence as the result of horrendous software quality (so good luck selling a need for better software). Sure, the contemporary static typing movement (as I like to call it) does appear to have genuine intentions to assist programmer (some of which should probably not even be allowed to code) to write substantially less buggy code. But I certainly do not agree with this idea that static typing will extend both mediocre and great programmers. In fact, if any of contemporary statically typed languages (or worse: ad-hoc extensions to dynamically typed languages) make somebody write substantially better software, then I firmly believe that this person either has fundamental CS related problems, or is being rushed/pressured too much to ever produce anything of considerable quality. I sincerely doubt that a statically typed language (or language add-on) will ever fix either of those. Such programmers will nonetheless still be good enough for a lot of regular programming gigs though. But, for the love of the gods, please keep those people miles away from anything embedded or kernel-level code. Again, I think you mean nothing but good. You may even know far more on the subject than I can expect, just based on your response. Either way, I certainly don't mean to offend you. Still, whenever I read a response like your's, I can't escape the feeling that it sounds more like a repeated mantra than that in comes from a deep understanding of the actual problem, including its long/complicated history.
- bitwize 6y ago
  > Faster development and code simplification, by only doing data validation where it was really needed (at run time), among them. This is a trap many programmers fall into. You should be parsing, not validating[0]. If you are ingesting JSON data, for instance, what you need is not a generic JSON parser but a parser that only accepts JSON representations that map to a particular, static data type and throws parse errors where in a dynamic language you might find "validation errors", for example, an unknown data field or a field value of the wrong type. Getting the types right early doesn't substantially slow you down overall, and yields a result that's much, much easier to get correct. Any such slowdown is a greater "capex" in the form of initial development, that's more than offset by much, much lower "opex" in the form of maintenance. > In fact, if any of contemporary statically typed languages (or worse: ad-hoc extensions to dynamically typed languages) make somebody write substantially better software, then I firmly believe that this person either has fundamental CS related problems, or is being rushed/pressured too much to ever produce anything of considerable quality. I sincerely doubt that a statically typed language (or language add-on) will ever fix either of those. This is wrong, and it's wrong for "theory vs. reality" reasons. Take one of the languages in your background: C. What you see may be true of a hypothetical programmer who knows all the arcane rules to C and can avoid tripping one of C's many, many UB landmines the first time, every time. But most programmers in the real world are human beings who may not have had their coffee. And they are going to make mistakes and unwittingly trip UB landmines. And this is as true of great C programmers as it is of beginners. You could build some strong rules around C, such as "allocate memory as little as humanly possible" and "avoid threading unless you can justify needing the performance gains" that will help programmers stay well clear of the traps inherent to C programming. Or you can switch to Rust, and fearlessly write code that allocates memory and even threaded code, because Rust's type system guarantees memory safety and a lack of data races. [0] https://lexi-lambda.github.io/blog/2019/11/05/parse-don-t-validate/ https://lexi-lambda.github.io/blog/2019/11/05/parse-don-t-va...
  - elmo2you 6y ago
    > This is a trap many programmers fall into. You should be parsing, not validating. Maybe it was an unfortunate choice of words on my part. Additionally, and I only meant to indicated how it was promoted/advertised, rather than make any statement about weather it was a sound argument. Either way, at the end of the day, a parser is a validator all the same. Sure, more (domain) specific parsers indeed make better code (duh). That's true for both compile time and run time parsing. But how often, in real life business situation, is there enough time to create a solid architecture and fully fleshed out (domain) specific (run time, or compile time) parsers? Again, I'm not disputing that statically typed languages may have a potential for creating more structurally healthy code. However, from my experience it still takes a hell of a lot of time and effort (for which there often is no room in real life business situations). Dynamically typed languages often create seriously flawed software, no doubt about that. But I'm convinced that this is more because many programmers just don't do what they actually should be doing in any case (in any language). Statically types language can alleviate that problem a little, by forcing programmers to think more about what they should already be thinking about in the first place. But it is not a magic bullet. I'm not even going to discuss the downsides from overly specified/specific software code. > This is wrong, and it's wrong for "theory vs. reality" reasons. In case you missed it: my main gripe with all of this is that I just can not find any of all these great improvements, that evangelists keep pushing, in actual real world examples (at least not within my personal experience). Yet here you try to convince me that my point it too much theory and telling me a story about how real world programming actually works. Seriously? I mentioned C to indicate from which direction in the industry I come from, nothing more. Well, maybe also to indicate that I've been doing this for some time now. No need to tell me how programmers work (plenty of experience with that), or making excuses for how it's just human nature for them to fuck up if they aren't held by their hand. I might have bought that kind of bullshit 25 years go. There have been plenty of attempts, purporting to to give programmers better tools and assist them writing better software. Most of them with only good intentions. Nothing new about that, about as old as commercial software itself. However, I've seen a rather depressing trend how all of those hardly ever held up in reality, over time. Whether that is because the knowledge level of programmers constantly degrades, or if it is because such solutions promote laziness, that might be more of a philosophical discussion and hard to establish as fact. I find it at least a bit ironic though, how I apparently am being schooled on how I "just don't get it right", by what to me sounds and smells a hell of a lot like theoretical evangelical drivel itself. In fact, at this point I can't help but recall an iconic argument about how plants crave Brawndo, because of the electrolytes. Keep on programming the way you do. If you are a good programmer, it shouldn't matter which language or tools you use. I wish you nothing but the best and good luck. Time will tell if Rust will survive the hype and actually deliver what it has been promising for a while. Maybe it indeed will. I'm not holding my breath though. Especially not since (nontransparent) corporate influence/control on languages and tools in becoming an ever growing factor (with all kind of problems associated with it).