6 ms·

This is kinda the point of smalltalk. It's a radically different programming model _and_ paradigm than most C-derived languages. If you're looking for a langua

• theamk 5y ago
  > So, the push to add types to JS, Python, Ruby and other dynamic languages is largely from developers accustomed to Java, C-Sharp, and other enterprisy languages ... Nope, this is not true. I am personally pushing to add types to our Python codebase, and I have no love for "Java, C-Sharp and other enterprisy languages". It's just that as the codebase grows, and especially as number of contributors grows, people start to make more mistakes. A rarely used code path, like an error handler, might fail in production because of wrong type or missing argument. We can require unit tests with 100% coverage, but this is very hard -- and typing linter finds you many more bugs per effort spent. That does not mean that we should always specify every type in program explicitly, like Java does. Unspecified types are great for interactive exploration, or a quick hack. But as you move to production, don't understimate typecheckers -- they can help a lot.
  • ok123456 5y ago
    This is pretty much my feeling. I'm not adding types because I have some kind of brain rot that makes me need AbstractFactoryBeanContainerAnnotationFactory. I like adding type annotation because it means you can do static analysis on your code base. Without it, you need exhaustive coverage tests to demonstrate what exactly can be returned.
  • cxr 5y ago
    > That does not mean that we should always specify every type in program explicitly, like Java does. Unspecified types are great for interactive exploration, or a quick hack. It's also helpful to consider whether they constitute unnecessary requirements[1]. Most mainstream JS code is rife with problems like this—including rampant mis-/over-use of triple equals. (I call this "going out of your way to do the wrong thing".) 1. https://www.teamten.com/lawrence/programming/dont-invent-unnecessary-requirements.html https://www.teamten.com/lawrence/programming/dont-invent-unn...
    • johncolanduoni 5y ago
      In what situation do you want the whole spectrum of `==` behavior in JS, other than possibly the `undefined == null` case? I’d argue exercising any of the other type conversion cases like `1 == true` or implicit `valueOf/toString` makes the code much harder to understand.
      • cxr 4y ago
        To ask the question is to fundamentally misunderstand the context. Please do check out the link. It's not a matter of wanting "the whole spectrum" of double equals (and then justifying that). You need to justify the requirements you're imposing. The article I linked gives an excellent example of why unnecessary requirements should be avoided. Aside from that, overuse of triple equals is almost always a code smell that indicates the contributor is coming from a place of following cargo cult advice instead of solid understanding. (And in the case of the cargo cult advice about triple equals, it's not even very logical advice. I.e. it's not just the people following the advice who aren't thinking it through—the people dispensing it tend to be engaged in shallow thinking, too.) For example, anyone who asks you in a code review to replace `typeof(x) == y` with 'typeof(x) === y` has no solid reason whatsoever for that change (and will never have any; there is no argument that will hold up under scrutiny).
• wirrbel 5y ago
  > the push to add types to JS, Python, Ruby and other dynamic languages is largely from developers accustomed to Java, C-Sharp, and other enterprisy languages who would probably rather not work in a dynamic language at all I recall Guido van Rossum stating once, that he got convinced of the necessity for type annotations by JetBrains explaining to him how hard it was to provide good code completion. Not sure its the full answer, but back then I found it interesting as an example how lobbying can work. (I feel rather indifferent on the type annotations for Python actually, I can see their usefulness, but also the shortcomings of retroactively introducing such a system into a dynamically typed language).
  • cout 5y ago
    Typically in Ruby (which is heavily Smalltalk-influenced) we do ad-hoc type annotations anyway and call it documentation. So you've got the camp that favors type annotations for various reasons and the camp that is opposed. There is also a third camp: the DBC (design by contract) camp. Their argument is that type annotations don't go far enough and that's what you really need is to enforce preconditions and postconditions. While I see their point, I think DBC lacks a "killer app" -- which as you pointed out, for type annotations, is static analysis (which leads to tools like code completion, refactoring browsers, performance improvements, and more).
    • dgb23 5y ago
      One „killer app“ for these is interactive programming with instrumentation and generative tests: https://clojure.org/guides/spec https://clojure.org/guides/spec
    • rbanffy 5y ago
      > I think DBC lacks a "killer app" If Ariane 5 carried astronauts, it'd certainly be a killer app: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/562936 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/562936
  • bmitc 5y ago
    > I recall Guido van Rossum stating once, that he got convinced of the necessity for type annotations by JetBrains explaining to him how hard it was to provide good code completion. What a weird reason to decide type annotations are useful, but I suppose I am not surprised. And is that really even true? Code completion works fine with Elixir and ElixirLS in VS Code and is seemingly independent of whether typespecs are present or not.
• hvidgaard 5y ago
  > But statically typed complied languages do not provide an inherently better programming paradigm than dynamic programming. For any large long lived project with multiple contributors, statically type analysis definitely adds value by eliminating an entire class of errors at compile time.
• Tozen 5y ago
  Types exist for a reason. It's not a fad, it's a solution to various problems.