4 ms·

Well, how is this measured? My experience working over 3 decades with large teams also says this is so (static typing does prevent bugs) but that is not science

Well, how is this measured? My experience working over 3 decades with large teams also says this is so (static typing does prevent bugs) but that is not science. How do they measure this 'when you go and check'? I am really curious as I don't even understand how people make large systems without static typing and all massively complex systems that I personally have worked with that run for decades transacting billions$ etc without flaws are all statically typed.

chrisseaton 4y ago
We don't seem to be able to measure it, despite people trying several wacky approaches. Either that means it's hard to measure, or it means the effect is not actually there. Either way, this means that we cannot say that static typing reduces bugs. > all massively complex systems that I personally have worked with that run for decades transacting billions$ etc without flaws are all statically typed Did you try building the same systems without static typing as well and see what the difference was? Or are you just saying that you built systems with static typing and they were successful? That tells you nothing about static typing except that it doesn't prevent successful programs, which is a very weak thing to be able to claim! Lots of people, like you, think static typing is very important for developing software, but when someone challenges this and says 'can you actually show that?' they have never been able to. At some point you need to reconsider if it's actually the case.
- tluyben2 4y ago
  I do reconsider it all the time; we only have short lives and I cannot build a lot large systems in my life. So that is why I asked if how it is measured. I see that my teams are more effective with static typing, but that also is my management as I, as I said, cannot really imagine writing large systems in not statically typed systems. I write a lot of scheme and k and bash and wrote a lot of tcl and Perl but never could get to scale like I can with statically compiled languages. I lean more to dependently typed languages than dynamic as I simply saw only misery, but, again, this is not saying anything, it is just my experience. I am a bit afraid though, because there is no clear measurement, it is just anyone’s experience. Edit; which actually would be fine; if it works for you and your team, company and business goals…
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    > I see that my teams are more effective with static typing If you think you really can see evidence for it then I'd encourage you to write up a paper and submit it for peer review. I guess when you sat down to write it you'd suddenly realise that you don't actually have any hard evidence. > cannot really imagine writing large systems in not statically typed systems Ok but lack of imagination is not science. Some people cannot imagine a spherical Earth, but that doesn't make it untrue. For example I work on a system in a dynamically typed language (Ruby) that successfully handles tens of billions a year, so we know that it is possible. (We are adding optional static typing to it, but it was written without it.)
    - tluyben2 4y ago
      > Ok but lack of imagination is not science. Sure, but that’s what I said in the first place. It all seems there is no evidence, not even empirical for either way. I was looking for any, if there was. MS or whatnot must have something no?
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        > I was looking for any, if there was. I would say in summary that no, we don't have any evidence. Evidence that people have tried to present has been found to be flawed in peer review.
    - tluyben2 4y ago
      > We are adding optional static typing to it, Why, if not for reducing bugs?
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        > Why, if not for reducing bugs? Maintainability, tooling, and some people would argue for reducing bugs - but I'd challenge them in the same way I challenge you - can they prove it? And I would guess that they cannot. If the person I was replying to was saying that they could not imagine a large system without types, and well they don't have to since I gave them a real example.
- scythe 4y ago
  Perhaps it's like the LHC. Static typing reduces bugs above a certain project size, but we haven't been able to perform a study at large enough project sizes. Now if only we could get a bunch of governments all over the world on the case... (only slightly joking)
slaymaker1907 4y ago
A lot of the studies have been problematic because they look at toy problems (like leetcode problems). Static typing really starts to show its value in large projects. One huge project I'm aware of that uses a lot of python is the Sims 4 which uses it for a lot of the game engine and mods.
- bjourne 4y ago
  Your argument is analogous to the one used by homeopaths and those believing in telekinesis. "There is an effect but it disappears in a laboratory setting, but it's still there!"
  - seoaeu 4y ago
    All effects disappear if you don’t use strong enough measurement techniques

chrisseaton 4y ago

We don't seem to be able to measure it, despite people trying several wacky approaches. Either that means it's hard to measure, or it means the effect is not actually there. Either way, this means that we cannot say that static typing reduces bugs. > all massively complex systems that I personally have worked with that run for decades transacting billions$ etc without flaws are all statically typed Did you try building the same systems without static typing as well and see what the difference was? Or are you just saying that you built systems with static typing and they were successful? That tells you nothing about static typing except that it doesn't prevent successful programs, which is a very weak thing to be able to claim! Lots of people, like you, think static typing is very important for developing software, but when someone challenges this and says 'can you actually show that?' they have never been able to. At some point you need to reconsider if it's actually the case.

tluyben2 4y ago
I do reconsider it all the time; we only have short lives and I cannot build a lot large systems in my life. So that is why I asked if how it is measured. I see that my teams are more effective with static typing, but that also is my management as I, as I said, cannot really imagine writing large systems in not statically typed systems. I write a lot of scheme and k and bash and wrote a lot of tcl and Perl but never could get to scale like I can with statically compiled languages. I lean more to dependently typed languages than dynamic as I simply saw only misery, but, again, this is not saying anything, it is just my experience. I am a bit afraid though, because there is no clear measurement, it is just anyone’s experience. Edit; which actually would be fine; if it works for you and your team, company and business goals…
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > I see that my teams are more effective with static typing If you think you really can see evidence for it then I'd encourage you to write up a paper and submit it for peer review. I guess when you sat down to write it you'd suddenly realise that you don't actually have any hard evidence. > cannot really imagine writing large systems in not statically typed systems Ok but lack of imagination is not science. Some people cannot imagine a spherical Earth, but that doesn't make it untrue. For example I work on a system in a dynamically typed language (Ruby) that successfully handles tens of billions a year, so we know that it is possible. (We are adding optional static typing to it, but it was written without it.)
  - tluyben2 4y ago
    > Ok but lack of imagination is not science. Sure, but that’s what I said in the first place. It all seems there is no evidence, not even empirical for either way. I was looking for any, if there was. MS or whatnot must have something no?
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      > I was looking for any, if there was. I would say in summary that no, we don't have any evidence. Evidence that people have tried to present has been found to be flawed in peer review.
  - tluyben2 4y ago
    > We are adding optional static typing to it, Why, if not for reducing bugs?
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      > Why, if not for reducing bugs? Maintainability, tooling, and some people would argue for reducing bugs - but I'd challenge them in the same way I challenge you - can they prove it? And I would guess that they cannot. If the person I was replying to was saying that they could not imagine a large system without types, and well they don't have to since I gave them a real example.
scythe 4y ago
Perhaps it's like the LHC. Static typing reduces bugs above a certain project size, but we haven't been able to perform a study at large enough project sizes. Now if only we could get a bunch of governments all over the world on the case... (only slightly joking)

slaymaker1907 4y ago

A lot of the studies have been problematic because they look at toy problems (like leetcode problems). Static typing really starts to show its value in large projects. One huge project I'm aware of that uses a lot of python is the Sims 4 which uses it for a lot of the game engine and mods.

bjourne 4y ago
Your argument is analogous to the one used by homeopaths and those believing in telekinesis. "There is an effect but it disappears in a laboratory setting, but it's still there!"
- seoaeu 4y ago
  All effects disappear if you don’t use strong enough measurement techniques