4 ms·
This is true in a local context, but entirely breaks down when a codebase becomes larger than a single person can fit into their brain-RAM. Not arguing or sayin
by mdtusz 4y ago
This is true in a local context, but entirely breaks down when a codebase becomes larger than a single person can fit into their brain-RAM. Not arguing or saying you're wrong - just presenting the very quickly reached boundary where the argument breaks down.
- BlargMcLarg 4y agoIt's not just local context. Reading a dense book is still more difficult than reading a less dense book, given a fairly similar amount of information and style in conveying that information. Larger codebases suffer the same problem you mention in a different way, and cargocults in most static languages tend to advocate very verbose writing styles. Where this falls apart, the more verbose writing style hasn't been proven to convey more information or in a better way. That's an assumption still tossed around.
- kangda123 4y agoIt is just a fair bit harder to figure out the types as program grows.
- falcolas 4y agoNot in my experience. Language engines are good enough to help most of the time, And typed or untyped, you’re only ever reasoning about the types in the context you’re working in, not the entire program.
- kangda123 4y agoCan you actually determine things like that with an engine? A Python function can be called from within or from outside of your codebase with different callsites passing different types.