3 ms·

> 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.