4 ms·

That is your opinion though, my opinion is that type systems stricter than C# detracts rather than adds and most agree with me. People who like to discuss langu

That is your opinion though, my opinion is that type systems stricter than C# detracts rather than adds and most agree with me. People who like to discuss language theory don't, of course, since the major reasons to discuss language theory is that the popular languages don't have the features you like or that you want to specifically solve software engineering problems in the language level rather than the code level.

rowanG077 6y ago
It's not possible to solve problems at the code level. That would require every single developer writing in that language to account for all the holes in the type systems. That's completely unrealistic. And can be seen to be disastrous in practice. I mean just walk through some python code. There are almost no None or manual type checks. These are just bombs waiting to explode. The problem with type systems like C# and Java are that they are too strict. Look at the polymorphism mess in those languages. The entire reason people hate static typing is because of the shittiness of precisely those two languages. That's the reason we need better type systems.
- username90 6y ago
  Each restriction at the language level adds a cost. The cost of having simple nullable types like you do in Java or C# is worth it. The cost of trying to formalize away null errors isn't. That is what I think. Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should, so just because you can ensure no errors of class X happens at a language level doesn't mean that enforcing that at a language level is the best solution. > It's not possible to solve problems at the code level. That would require every single developer writing in that language to account for all the holes in the type systems. I'm not sure what you mean with this. Of course you can fix this at a code level. Not for the entire world of course, but you can do it in the code you write.

rowanG077 6y ago

It's not possible to solve problems at the code level. That would require every single developer writing in that language to account for all the holes in the type systems. That's completely unrealistic. And can be seen to be disastrous in practice. I mean just walk through some python code. There are almost no None or manual type checks. These are just bombs waiting to explode. The problem with type systems like C# and Java are that they are too strict. Look at the polymorphism mess in those languages. The entire reason people hate static typing is because of the shittiness of precisely those two languages. That's the reason we need better type systems.

username90 6y ago
Each restriction at the language level adds a cost. The cost of having simple nullable types like you do in Java or C# is worth it. The cost of trying to formalize away null errors isn't. That is what I think. Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should, so just because you can ensure no errors of class X happens at a language level doesn't mean that enforcing that at a language level is the best solution. > It's not possible to solve problems at the code level. That would require every single developer writing in that language to account for all the holes in the type systems. I'm not sure what you mean with this. Of course you can fix this at a code level. Not for the entire world of course, but you can do it in the code you write.