4 ms·

While I'm pretty solidly in the "pro-typing" camp, it seems worth acknowledging that such projects often turn into dumpster fires in typed languages as well, ev

• jjnoakes 4y ago
  Maybe, maybe not - but in my experience, a dumpster fire with static types is easier to read and understand and also easier to refactor.
  • dllthomas 4y ago
    That matches my experience as well. I just think we need to be resistant to reading too much into "I've seen bad code that X", because that can easily be true of almost any X.
  • jibe 4y ago
    You think that statically typed languages don’t often turn into dumpster fires? Not my experience! Even though there are real advantages.
• 3836293648 4y ago
  Sure, but they don't turn into dumpster fires because of the types, as untyped projects tend to do
  • dllthomas 4y ago
    I don't know that that's true. When the types in a program are designed in a way that's sufficiently out of sync with what a program needs to do, you can get a lot of mess working around them. Can we say that's misuse of the tools? Sure. Is it less likely than things becoming a mess without types? Probably? Even more so as the tools improve and as the people involved know better how to use them.