3 ms·
I think most people, myself included, that dislike verbose type systems aren't opposed to type checking itself. We're just not overjoyed at learning and using a
by pharke 6y ago
I think most people, myself included, that dislike verbose type systems aren't opposed to type checking itself. We're just not overjoyed at learning and using a meta-programming language to do it. The argument tends to center around the friction it introduces to the development cycle. Those in favor of these languages often argue that you would need to spend the extra time verifying that the code is correct anyways but I don't think it equals out in the end, it certainly doesn't make things any faster. I'm sure that much more could be done to infer types or automate the process, I'm unsure of why this isn't done in the more popular languages. Maybe it's just a hangover from C++ and we're just repeating bad patterns when there is a better way? It's not like we haven't done that before.
- cphoover 6y agoI agree that where strict typing exists it should have the ability to get out of the way as is with languages that support type inference. Personally I've never found type mismatches to be particularly a large problem, as you can still support input validation where needed, generally at some application message boundary like an http request/response, and the type of bugs caused by mismatched types are easy to diagnose and test for. The class of bugs that to me are much more difficult to fix unlike type mismatches are not immediately visible or do not give descriptive messages for example race conditions, memory leaks, logical errors, etc...