4 ms·

> Plus, dynamically typed languages had these rich features that just weren't really accessible in mainstream statically typed languages, and so they kind of be

> Plus, dynamically typed languages had these rich features that just weren't really accessible in mainstream statically typed languages, and so they kind of became associated with each other in my brain even if that wasn't specifically true. This resonates a lot with me (though as you say, isn't really a typing thing). I work on ML systems for autonomous vehicles, so I switch between Python and C++, and I definitely occasionally start writing some C++ logic in an elegant functional way and realize that C++'s boilerplate makes it less readable than the usually-less-readable naive construct like a loop (eg I'm surprised at how often std::transform comes out looking terrible). Do you mind if I ask about the size of the systems/teams you've worked on throughout this process? My experience with C++ has been in large systems worked on asynchronously by lots of engineers (with strong code review policies in place), and my experience with Python has been everything from moderately-sized systems down to smaller ones down to scripting. The Python case also included work with an inexperienced (and frankly, partially unintelligent) team of engineers, which made the discipline imposed by typing all the more valuable, but I have found the documentation and structure that typing imposes on code to be invaluable in communicating As I said in my other comment, I'm still concerned this is a little facile, but having started my career on C++ systems at Google, I wonder whether I've just set a standard so high for the health of a system that many of those who dismiss typing's value don't understand that those benefits are possible (I'm certainly an order of magnitude better at reading code than anyone my current team, but this is confounded by the fact that everyone else has a weaker engineering background and stronger robotics or ML domain expertise). To be clear, I don't think this applies to you necessarily; your approach of trading off the benefits of ergonomics vs structure resonates strongly with me, and I'd imagine it's even more the case on pre-modern statically-typed languages. What I'm really curious about is the perspective expressed in the OP, which, in the 2010s, doesn't even see _value_ in types beyond perhaps negligible benefit from some compiler checks. Thank you very much for the perspective!

steveklabnik 6y ago
> Do you mind if I ask about the size of the systems/teams you've worked on throughout this process? The "oh wow I'm never doing static typing again" bit happened entirely as a hobbyist, maybe working on a project with a friend or two. My early professional life was dominated by Ruby, mostly in smallish teams, that is, like, under 30 people. Then I got into working in Ruby open source, where the teams are much bigger, and aren't all working for the same org... > occasionally start writing some C++ logic in an elegant functional way and realize that C++'s boilerplate makes it less readable Not to be That Guy, but you should give Rust a try if you haven't yet. You may not like it, but it will make writing that style of code feel more like Python, often. > I wonder whether I've just set a standard so high for the health of a system that many of those who dismiss typing's value don't understand that those benefits are possible I think the issue isn't about possibility, but about realization. That is, I also did know that more robust static typing existed, but in 2008 I wasn't going to be writing a web app in Haskell, but in PHP or Rails. So it felt pretty academic. And even knowing that it's possible in theory isn't the same as experiencing it in practice. One of the things that frustrates me about this particular Discourse (static vs dynamic types) is that many dynamic language proponents (myself included historically) will understand that testing is a skill that they need to practice with in order to succeed, but don't perceive types the same way. It takes practice! You won't just magically see benefits immediately. They're a tool. But in order to justify doing that work, you have to be able to see a real benefit. I don't begrudge people that don't see the connections here and so don't want to put in the time or effort to realize the benefits.
- wutbrodo 6y ago
  > Not to be That Guy, but you should give Rust a try if you haven't yet. You may not like it, but it will make writing that style of code feel more like Python, often. I've never used Rust but I was a (low-confidence) big fan the moment I saw it, and everything I've seen since has only strengthened this impression. I don't exactly _love_ C++ and all its janky weirdness, and Rust seems like it improves ergonomics while allowing even more powerful control over memory and type safety. Unfortunately, there are a couple of computer science subspecialties that I prioritize when looking for roles, so I lose some degrees of freedom in the ability to pick jobs or side projects that would expose me to Rust.
chriskrycho 6y ago
For what it’s worth, a significant part of my not seeing the value of types back in the early 2010s was the combination of my own immaturity with the pretty poor quality of the systems I was working with. You can make C++ do a lot of this work for you (albeit not quite as far as a language influenced by Standard ML). But none of the C++ I ever encountered in the wild in that era did. It was all the effort with none of the benefit. I spent many, many months of my life dealing with the exact same kinds of bugs in Fortran, C, and C++ systems that I was dealing with in PHP and JS and Python. So the feeling that resulted was: why do the extra work I have to do in Fortran and C and C++ if it’s not actually buying me anything? No doubt if I’d been working on teams which were effectively leveraging C++’s type system, I might have felt differently. But I wasn’t, so I didn’t. For what it’s worth, these days I tend to talk almost exclusively in terms of the tradeoffs involved with adopting any given type system vs. the alternatives in the space. Even as an admittedly huge Rust fanboy,[1] I don’t think it’s a panacea or a thing you should pick for every project. To the contrary. And I’d go so far as to say that there are some places where something like Erlang is going to help you solve your specific problems more robustly than Rust will, which likely sounds like heresy to many fellow fans of type systems. [1]: https://newrustacean.com https://newrustacean.com

steveklabnik 6y ago

> Do you mind if I ask about the size of the systems/teams you've worked on throughout this process? The "oh wow I'm never doing static typing again" bit happened entirely as a hobbyist, maybe working on a project with a friend or two. My early professional life was dominated by Ruby, mostly in smallish teams, that is, like, under 30 people. Then I got into working in Ruby open source, where the teams are much bigger, and aren't all working for the same org... > occasionally start writing some C++ logic in an elegant functional way and realize that C++'s boilerplate makes it less readable Not to be That Guy, but you should give Rust a try if you haven't yet. You may not like it, but it will make writing that style of code feel more like Python, often. > I wonder whether I've just set a standard so high for the health of a system that many of those who dismiss typing's value don't understand that those benefits are possible I think the issue isn't about possibility, but about realization. That is, I also did know that more robust static typing existed, but in 2008 I wasn't going to be writing a web app in Haskell, but in PHP or Rails. So it felt pretty academic. And even knowing that it's possible in theory isn't the same as experiencing it in practice. One of the things that frustrates me about this particular Discourse (static vs dynamic types) is that many dynamic language proponents (myself included historically) will understand that testing is a skill that they need to practice with in order to succeed, but don't perceive types the same way. It takes practice! You won't just magically see benefits immediately. They're a tool. But in order to justify doing that work, you have to be able to see a real benefit. I don't begrudge people that don't see the connections here and so don't want to put in the time or effort to realize the benefits.

wutbrodo 6y ago
> Not to be That Guy, but you should give Rust a try if you haven't yet. You may not like it, but it will make writing that style of code feel more like Python, often. I've never used Rust but I was a (low-confidence) big fan the moment I saw it, and everything I've seen since has only strengthened this impression. I don't exactly _love_ C++ and all its janky weirdness, and Rust seems like it improves ergonomics while allowing even more powerful control over memory and type safety. Unfortunately, there are a couple of computer science subspecialties that I prioritize when looking for roles, so I lose some degrees of freedom in the ability to pick jobs or side projects that would expose me to Rust.

chriskrycho 6y ago

For what it’s worth, a significant part of my not seeing the value of types back in the early 2010s was the combination of my own immaturity with the pretty poor quality of the systems I was working with. You can make C++ do a lot of this work for you (albeit not quite as far as a language influenced by Standard ML). But none of the C++ I ever encountered in the wild in that era did. It was all the effort with none of the benefit. I spent many, many months of my life dealing with the exact same kinds of bugs in Fortran, C, and C++ systems that I was dealing with in PHP and JS and Python. So the feeling that resulted was: why do the extra work I have to do in Fortran and C and C++ if it’s not actually buying me anything? No doubt if I’d been working on teams which were effectively leveraging C++’s type system, I might have felt differently. But I wasn’t, so I didn’t. For what it’s worth, these days I tend to talk almost exclusively in terms of the tradeoffs involved with adopting any given type system vs. the alternatives in the space. Even as an admittedly huge Rust fanboy,[1] I don’t think it’s a panacea or a thing you should pick for every project. To the contrary. And I’d go so far as to say that there are some places where something like Erlang is going to help you solve your specific problems more robustly than Rust will, which likely sounds like heresy to many fellow fans of type systems. [1]: https://newrustacean.com https://newrustacean.com