3 ms·

> you will notice immediately No, you won't notice immediately. You will only notice when you run your code, because it will crash. And it might not crash rig

> you will notice immediately No, you won't notice immediately. You will only notice when you run your code, because it will crash. And it might not crash right away, because the bad code is not being run, so you have a crash waiting to happen at some time in the future, which might have been avoided with a competent type system. Users of statically typed languages have a different understanding of "immediately" than you do. If the compiler knows my code will crash, it should simply refuse to compile it until I fix it. > The idea that everything must be caught by the compiler is narrow-minded and ultimately can't be achieved. Ah, the famous fallacy "We can't reach 100% so let's just be content with 0%". That's not how the world works. Static types provide not just non crash guarantees but plenty of other advantages (automatic refactorings, performance, code that's easier to read and maintain, etc...). You have just gotten used to a crappy developer experience because you are using a dynamically typed (or very badly typed) programming language. Get out of that boiling pot and be more exigent from your programming language, there are some very good ones available today which will make you go back to your statements above in a few years and think "Yeah... that was a pretty silly thing to say, but I know better now".

jstimpfle 5y ago
> You will only notice when you run your code How did you infer that that's not immediately? > If the compiler knows my code will crash, it should simply refuse to compile it until I fix it. Sure but what if it doesn't know that, then I won't complain about the next best opportunity, which is pressing F5 once and seeing the code I just typed doesn't work as intended. > Static types provide not just non crash guarantees How about no? > Ah, the famous fallacy "We can't reach 100% so let's just be content with 0%". If using a void-pointer parameter once in a blue moon for some convenience (callback function pointer), how is that 0% and not 99%? I recognize I've written too many comments, seeing as the replies are starting to get extremely poor. Ignoring the rest.

jstimpfle 5y ago

> You will only notice when you run your code How did you infer that that's not immediately? > If the compiler knows my code will crash, it should simply refuse to compile it until I fix it. Sure but what if it doesn't know that, then I won't complain about the next best opportunity, which is pressing F5 once and seeing the code I just typed doesn't work as intended. > Static types provide not just non crash guarantees How about no? > Ah, the famous fallacy "We can't reach 100% so let's just be content with 0%". If using a void-pointer parameter once in a blue moon for some convenience (callback function pointer), how is that 0% and not 99%? I recognize I've written too many comments, seeing as the replies are starting to get extremely poor. Ignoring the rest.