3 ms·

> I know people are irrational, especially when they feel that their beliefs are being questioned. do you think I haven't used dynamic languages? I started usi

> I know people are irrational, especially when they feel that their beliefs are being questioned. do you think I haven't used dynamic languages? I started using elixir in 2016. I started my career in Ruby, JS, and PHP. Just because you can conceptualize the entire codebase's type system in your big brain, doesn't mean other don't have a rational reason for preferring static typing. > Did you have this problem recently? Every time I refactor, my dude.

romanoderoma 6y ago
> Just because you can conceptualize the entire codebase's type system in your big brain I can' t that' s the problem Erlang is not typeless, it' s not Javascript, it has types But they are simpler to understand an to use Especially for people coming from different backgrounds It helps coders to focus on the structure of their code, instead of the rigid grid of types they have to be forced into, that most of the times create monsters because they immediately google a solution to pass compiler checks, they find a low level stack overflow answer, copy and paste it and call it a day. Whoever says it's not true, is lying or is living among super humans that devoted their life to be perfect. > doesn't mean other don't have a rational reason for preferring static typing. It' s what I' ve been trying to say all along! If you prefer them, go for it! Is it a scientifical measurable phenomenon? It is not. Joe Armstrong would write safer code than mine with any language. > Every time I refactor, my dude. If we accept that bad types are a programmer' s fault, not checking your calls is a programmer' s fault as well I argue that types force you to have a big IDE that checks the types for you, because they are enforced (stupidly most of the times) without any real benefit I find that pattern matching and function clauses work much better than having to decide if a param has to be a float or a double an int or an unsigned int, 16 or 32 bits?

romanoderoma 6y ago

> Just because you can conceptualize the entire codebase's type system in your big brain I can' t that' s the problem Erlang is not typeless, it' s not Javascript, it has types But they are simpler to understand an to use Especially for people coming from different backgrounds It helps coders to focus on the structure of their code, instead of the rigid grid of types they have to be forced into, that most of the times create monsters because they immediately google a solution to pass compiler checks, they find a low level stack overflow answer, copy and paste it and call it a day. Whoever says it's not true, is lying or is living among super humans that devoted their life to be perfect. > doesn't mean other don't have a rational reason for preferring static typing. It' s what I' ve been trying to say all along! If you prefer them, go for it! Is it a scientifical measurable phenomenon? It is not. Joe Armstrong would write safer code than mine with any language. > Every time I refactor, my dude. If we accept that bad types are a programmer' s fault, not checking your calls is a programmer' s fault as well I argue that types force you to have a big IDE that checks the types for you, because they are enforced (stupidly most of the times) without any real benefit I find that pattern matching and function clauses work much better than having to decide if a param has to be a float or a double an int or an unsigned int, 16 or 32 bits?