4 ms·

I'd be much more interested in needing less unit tests with stronger typing than avoiding needing stronger typing by writing more unit tests. The former seems l

I'd be much more interested in needing less unit tests with stronger typing than avoiding needing stronger typing by writing more unit tests. The former seems like much less work.

raincole 3y ago
It's from 2012. I feel the general opinion about static typing changed a lot in the past decade. (for reference, it's the same year when TypeScript came out. PEP 484 came out in 2014.)
kelnos 3y ago
Came here to say exactly this. Tests are more code that has to be maintained, and more code that can be wrong. I'm sure we've all encountered a test that didn't actually test what it was supposed to test, or wouldn't actually fail in the cases it was supposed to. Obviously a compiler can't prove your code is correct in every possible way, but any time the compiler can prove something correct without me needing to write a test for it, that's a win. Stronger type systems and static type checking is a great way to do that.