4 ms·

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

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.
    - tluyben2 4y ago
      I agree it seems hard to prove; disappointed not more tried. Especially large companies that have skin in the game (MS with ts and c#/f#, Google with go and dart, oracle with Java, Mozilla with rust). Guess it’ll be a religious argument for some time to come and I will steer clear.
    - Perseids 4y ago
      Something else I find rather likely is that different people are working most effectively with different methodologies (a believe that is grounded in the repeated experience of being shocked at how other people program and still be effective). So it is entirely plausible there is a self-selection bias that people that work best with strong types don't work on projects with weak types and vice verse. I guess its really hard to control for that effect when you want to look at big projects, since people need to be willing to work on that for a long time.
    - wtetzner 4y ago
      > can they prove it? And I would guess that they cannot. Of course not, to do that you’d need a way to detect all bugs in a program. If we had an effective way to that, we’d be using to remove all of the bugs from our programs instead of looking for ways to avoid bugs.

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.
  - tluyben2 4y ago
    I agree it seems hard to prove; disappointed not more tried. Especially large companies that have skin in the game (MS with ts and c#/f#, Google with go and dart, oracle with Java, Mozilla with rust). Guess it’ll be a religious argument for some time to come and I will steer clear.
  - Perseids 4y ago
    Something else I find rather likely is that different people are working most effectively with different methodologies (a believe that is grounded in the repeated experience of being shocked at how other people program and still be effective). So it is entirely plausible there is a self-selection bias that people that work best with strong types don't work on projects with weak types and vice verse. I guess its really hard to control for that effect when you want to look at big projects, since people need to be willing to work on that for a long time.
  - wtetzner 4y ago
    > can they prove it? And I would guess that they cannot. Of course not, to do that you’d need a way to detect all bugs in a program. If we had an effective way to that, we’d be using to remove all of the bugs from our programs instead of looking for ways to avoid bugs.