3 ms·
Understanding existing code is a big benefit of static types as well. I’m sure one could argue that member names should obviate the need for type annotations.
by arwhatever 4y ago
Understanding existing code is a big benefit of static types as well.
I’m sure one could argue that member names should obviate the need for type annotations.
There’s also the distinct possibility that my preceding ~15 years of statically-typed software development have affected how I think about software development in some way. (wink)
But I am finding type annotations internet useful while working on a huge application that is about 2 years into adding a gradual typing system, enough so that I usually take time whenever I enter a new code area to add annotations to everything, just to understand what’s going on.
My perception is that I invest time to build understanding of the types, and then document what I’ve learned in the form of these type annotations so that future maintainers then gain a quicker understanding without having to do the initial research.
At least my non-statistically-significantly-sized team agrees.
- Izkata 4y ago> Understanding existing code is a big benefit of static types as well. At a syntax level perhaps, but not necessarily at a semantic level. This won't apply to everyone, but I've noticed that the more types are relied on, the less my co-workers really understand the code. They're relying on the compiler so much they don't slow down and think through the changes they're making. In one extreme case I saw a guess-change-compile workflow that relied entirely on the compiler doing the work for them.