3 ms·

I don't consider myself very opiniated on tech. But if there is one thing I am adamant about is that strongly typed languages are a must in any project that's m

by rafale 5y ago

I don't consider myself very opiniated on tech. But if there is one thing I am adamant about is that strongly typed languages are a must in any project that's meant to grow and last. It's a must to explore, understand and refactoring the codebase while maintaining your sanity. The tooling for dynamic languages is just not there yet. So it's not a rift as much as the fact that one camp is just plain wrong.

hnfong 5y ago
Which camp is plain wrong? The side that insists on using strongly typed languages for a weekend throwaway project? Or the side that insists on using dynamic languages for 2000 file projects? I always see "rifts" as a lack of perspective. One solution is obviously the only best way because they only see their narrow sets of use cases.
- kevinmgranger 5y ago
  Indeed. Every single technical choice has tradeoffs. It's just that some tradeoffs are non-issues for narrow use cases.
- rafale 5y ago
  "in any project that's meant to grow and last" I specified what I am talking about. Weekend projects are not even a contention point. People code them in Brainfuck and we all have a laugh about it. It's the stuff that end up at the job that frustrate us where you end up assigned to a 100k (or even just 10k) lines of javascript inferno hell. Because some dev thought he can develop "faster" in Javascript.
  - Tade0 5y ago
    Adequate testing goes a long way in dealing with that. If you don't have tests you're screwed either way.
    - RussianCow 5y ago
      This is wrong; tests and type systems have different purposes. One helps prevent logical bugs and regressions in your code, while the other enforces the correct use of code and data structures. They overlap a bit, but all the unit tests in the world can’t give you the guarantees that a type system does. And that’s without even mentioning the benefits to discoverability and documentation that a static type system gives you.
      - Supermancho 5y ago
        > This is wrong; tests and type systems have different purposes. For decades, companies have prospered without a strong type system and using tests for type assurance ad hoc. Usually when it's worrisome or has been problematic. You can say it's wrong (conceptually, theoretically, etc) and yet it people continue to do it. That's interesting to think about.
        whynaut 5y ago
        don't think it matters since the upthread discussion is more about understanding and refactoring code, not ensuring correctness.
        Tade0 5y ago
        Tests are a great way of explaining how a system works. Arguably better than types in some instances. In any case I would refrain from using absolutes like "wrong" for something that clearly works for some people in certain circumstances.
- axiosgunnar 5y ago
  > The side that insists on using strongly typed languages for a weekend throwaway project? yes? it's gonna take me 30min in a dynamic language because i keep running into "undefined" errors, or 20min in a strongly typed language because if the IDE is happy, i know it will work. the advantage of strongly typed languages is linear, from something that takes 10 minutes to something that takes 10 years, coding in a strongly typed language is always X% faster. put the other way: why would I want to code in a language that allows me to write impossible code? what is the point? the only selling point of python is the large corpus of third party packages (numpy etc), and that the syntax "looks simple" and is thus beginner-friendly. there is literally no other reason to use it apart from the above two reasons.
  - zo1 5y ago
    And don't forget the 15mins you spent choosing how to handle multiple types and future proofing by adding IOC and a DI framework that works like magic. Oh and the myriad activations and config that library devs added to their frameworks using a Fluent syntax because it looks better. No thanks.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      That's orthogonal to strong types. Java isn't the pinnacle of what strong type systems can look like.
MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
gregors 5y ago
I'll politely disagree with you and illustrate the many many many unicorns that were brought into existence under dynamic languages. And places such as Shopify which are after-the-fact adding typing to previously untyped languages. Every single bug that has ever existed in static languages passed the type-checker. There are benefits in types to be sure but cornering the market on "growing and lasting" is definitely not one of them. If anything I'd say types let you refactor quicker - dynamic languages let you launch faster. I should also note that I don't mean dependent type languages which I haven't actually shipped anything professionally but I'm extremely curious about.
- tluyben2 5y ago
  So you launch and the you add (dependent) types. That works and is quite a good way imho: when you start writing you miss a lot of details so you want to freely experiment and when parts get clearer and become stable you can rewrite, reactor, add types and proofs.
zo1 5y ago
My 2c. Typed languages justify themselves being typed by virtue of the complexity they themselves impose. We say they help us with solving a complex problem but I'd say they are the ones that make the problem more complicated than it needs to be. Yes they have their uses, but those are few and far between. The rest is just devs solving how to do what they want whilst keeping the compiler happy with whatever IBaseAbstract virtual template method thingimabob method the compiler needs.

by rafale 5y ago

hnfong 5y ago

Which camp is plain wrong? The side that insists on using strongly typed languages for a weekend throwaway project? Or the side that insists on using dynamic languages for 2000 file projects? I always see "rifts" as a lack of perspective. One solution is obviously the only best way because they only see their narrow sets of use cases.

kevinmgranger 5y ago
Indeed. Every single technical choice has tradeoffs. It's just that some tradeoffs are non-issues for narrow use cases.
rafale 5y ago
"in any project that's meant to grow and last" I specified what I am talking about. Weekend projects are not even a contention point. People code them in Brainfuck and we all have a laugh about it. It's the stuff that end up at the job that frustrate us where you end up assigned to a 100k (or even just 10k) lines of javascript inferno hell. Because some dev thought he can develop "faster" in Javascript.
- Tade0 5y ago
  Adequate testing goes a long way in dealing with that. If you don't have tests you're screwed either way.
  - RussianCow 5y ago
    This is wrong; tests and type systems have different purposes. One helps prevent logical bugs and regressions in your code, while the other enforces the correct use of code and data structures. They overlap a bit, but all the unit tests in the world can’t give you the guarantees that a type system does. And that’s without even mentioning the benefits to discoverability and documentation that a static type system gives you.
    - Supermancho 5y ago
      > This is wrong; tests and type systems have different purposes. For decades, companies have prospered without a strong type system and using tests for type assurance ad hoc. Usually when it's worrisome or has been problematic. You can say it's wrong (conceptually, theoretically, etc) and yet it people continue to do it. That's interesting to think about.
      - whynaut 5y ago
        don't think it matters since the upthread discussion is more about understanding and refactoring code, not ensuring correctness.
        Tade0 5y ago
        Tests are a great way of explaining how a system works. Arguably better than types in some instances. In any case I would refrain from using absolutes like "wrong" for something that clearly works for some people in certain circumstances.
axiosgunnar 5y ago
> The side that insists on using strongly typed languages for a weekend throwaway project? yes? it's gonna take me 30min in a dynamic language because i keep running into "undefined" errors, or 20min in a strongly typed language because if the IDE is happy, i know it will work. the advantage of strongly typed languages is linear, from something that takes 10 minutes to something that takes 10 years, coding in a strongly typed language is always X% faster. put the other way: why would I want to code in a language that allows me to write impossible code? what is the point? the only selling point of python is the large corpus of third party packages (numpy etc), and that the syntax "looks simple" and is thus beginner-friendly. there is literally no other reason to use it apart from the above two reasons.
- zo1 5y ago
  And don't forget the 15mins you spent choosing how to handle multiple types and future proofing by adding IOC and a DI framework that works like magic. Oh and the myriad activations and config that library devs added to their frameworks using a Fluent syntax because it looks better. No thanks.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    That's orthogonal to strong types. Java isn't the pinnacle of what strong type systems can look like.

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago

gregors 5y ago

I'll politely disagree with you and illustrate the many many many unicorns that were brought into existence under dynamic languages. And places such as Shopify which are after-the-fact adding typing to previously untyped languages. Every single bug that has ever existed in static languages passed the type-checker. There are benefits in types to be sure but cornering the market on "growing and lasting" is definitely not one of them. If anything I'd say types let you refactor quicker - dynamic languages let you launch faster. I should also note that I don't mean dependent type languages which I haven't actually shipped anything professionally but I'm extremely curious about.

tluyben2 5y ago
So you launch and the you add (dependent) types. That works and is quite a good way imho: when you start writing you miss a lot of details so you want to freely experiment and when parts get clearer and become stable you can rewrite, reactor, add types and proofs.

zo1 5y ago

My 2c. Typed languages justify themselves being typed by virtue of the complexity they themselves impose. We say they help us with solving a complex problem but I'd say they are the ones that make the problem more complicated than it needs to be. Yes they have their uses, but those are few and far between. The rest is just devs solving how to do what they want whilst keeping the compiler happy with whatever IBaseAbstract virtual template method thingimabob method the compiler needs.