3 ms·
Typed Python code on average takes two times the time to develop and contains two times the number of bugs per delivered software feature. It's bad, really rea
by ReflectedImage 4y ago
Typed Python code on average takes two times the time to develop and contains two times the number of bugs per delivered software feature.
It's bad, really really bad.
Refactoring can be done just as well via a good IDE and unit testing.
Using typechecking creates far more errors then it finds. They are a necessary evil in compiled languages. It's been measured that it creates more errors. That is not open for debate.
- snapcaster 4y agoWhat is this based on? I have a lot of trouble believing untyped python code has half the bugs of typed code being someone who has written and read a lot of both
- ReflectedImage 4y agoActual measurements. I don't think you should be surprised. Untyped Python code is a lot shorter and more concise than typed Python code. The easiest way by far to reduce the bug count is to reduce the lines of code.
- snapcaster 4y agoThat's a good point I hadn't considered. where did you find these measurements?
- ReflectedImage 4y agohttps://games.greggman.com/game/dynamic-typing-static-typing/ https://games.greggman.com/game/dynamic-typing-static-typing...
- nequo 4y agoMaybe it's my daftness but where does this post say that typed Python has twice the number of bugs? It only seems to say that typed code takes longer to write and is longer. It doesn't seem to say that typed code has more bugs, nor does it compare typed Python with untyped Python.