3 ms·

> like all dynamic languages I think you would be surprised by the amount of type-checked bugs that can be eliminated in dynamic languages with standard softwa

> like all dynamic languages I think you would be surprised by the amount of type-checked bugs that can be eliminated in dynamic languages with standard software engineering practices. have a look at how common lisp, for example, handles type annotations and type warnings: https://lispcookbook.github.io/cl-cookbook/type.html https://lispcookbook.github.io/cl-cookbook/type.html instead of blaming dynamic languages, i think project managers need to take on better practices > but the larger the code base, the more you need strong guarantees over flexibility i think i disagree with this. the larger the code base the more flexible the program needs to be towards its input, otherwise your program is too sensitive and it will crash. the output however i think should be strict

npsimons 5y ago
> I think you would be surprised by the amount of type-checked bugs that can be eliminated in dynamic languages with standard software engineering practices. have a look at how common lisp To second this, I just read someone's anecdote about how unit tests/TDD is eliminating the need for type checking: https://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=4639 https://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=4639 > i think i disagree with this. the larger the code base the more flexible the program needs to be towards its input And again, I'll second this with another anecdotal posting, but with the emphasis that input is not just run-time, but also specifications for programs: http://ivy.io/common-lisp/2015/03/03/guerilla-lisp-opus.html http://ivy.io/common-lisp/2015/03/03/guerilla-lisp-opus.html