3 ms·

Because working slowly and rewriting code typically leads to better code. By taking it slowly you grow more familiar with what you want, it gives you more time

Because working slowly and rewriting code typically leads to better code. By taking it slowly you grow more familiar with what you want, it gives you more time to think, and its generally more enjoyable. This culture of “fast coding” is a major reason software ends up so flawed. People are so enamored with quantity they completely forget quality along the way. And that means everyone suffers.

antonvs 3y ago
You didn’t actually address the point I raised about why C is hard to justify for that reason. Besides, a strong type system also forces you to think about the design of your code, and demonstrably leads to more reliable results, on an industry-wide basis.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > a strong type system also forces you to think about the design of your code True. And so does using a language like C.
  - antonvs 3y ago
    Except the forcing function in C occurs because if you make a mistake, you can have serious problems at runtime. With a strong type system, if you make a mistake, your program won't compile. It's a big difference, and it's hard to justify the C approach for reliable systems development in a modern context. No-one in this thread even seems to be trying. If you want to use it for hobby projects because you enjoy it, knock yourself out. But advocating its use for anything important hasn't been viable for decades except for legacy reasons.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > It's a big difference It is! And there is absolutely a role for strongly typed languages. > But advocating its use for anything important hasn't been viable for decades except for legacy reasons. We entirely disagree here. The big benefit of more stringent languages is that they require less effort on the part of the programmer to ensure safety and correctness. This is of great value -- perhaps even indispensable -- in certain contexts. For instance, if the programming team is large, or if the company wants to hire less experienced developers, or if the company wants to keep up a very high velocity. But those are economic arguments. It's different than asserting that a given language is simple too dangerous to use under any circumstance. I think that assertion is entirely unsupportable.
jjgreen 3y ago
This is so true, I've pointedly never learnt to touch type since I don't want to be able to write faster than I can think.

antonvs 3y ago

You didn’t actually address the point I raised about why C is hard to justify for that reason. Besides, a strong type system also forces you to think about the design of your code, and demonstrably leads to more reliable results, on an industry-wide basis.

JohnFen 3y ago
> a strong type system also forces you to think about the design of your code True. And so does using a language like C.
- antonvs 3y ago
  Except the forcing function in C occurs because if you make a mistake, you can have serious problems at runtime. With a strong type system, if you make a mistake, your program won't compile. It's a big difference, and it's hard to justify the C approach for reliable systems development in a modern context. No-one in this thread even seems to be trying. If you want to use it for hobby projects because you enjoy it, knock yourself out. But advocating its use for anything important hasn't been viable for decades except for legacy reasons.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > It's a big difference It is! And there is absolutely a role for strongly typed languages. > But advocating its use for anything important hasn't been viable for decades except for legacy reasons. We entirely disagree here. The big benefit of more stringent languages is that they require less effort on the part of the programmer to ensure safety and correctness. This is of great value -- perhaps even indispensable -- in certain contexts. For instance, if the programming team is large, or if the company wants to hire less experienced developers, or if the company wants to keep up a very high velocity. But those are economic arguments. It's different than asserting that a given language is simple too dangerous to use under any circumstance. I think that assertion is entirely unsupportable.

jjgreen 3y ago

This is so true, I've pointedly never learnt to touch type since I don't want to be able to write faster than I can think.