3 ms·

Some would argue that exactly that thinking is what makes the software cleaner and better- rather than mush-mash that passes the compiler. I.e what I’m saying i

Some would argue that exactly that thinking is what makes the software cleaner and better- rather than mush-mash that passes the compiler. I.e what I’m saying is that it might be good to be thinking about exactly what you’re passing in, out and why.

tines 3y ago
Isn't this the same argument that says that we should all write assembly, because you should have to think harder and really know what you're doing?
- Aerbil313 3y ago
  The two are not even remotely comparable. Your comment is not thoughtful.
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Of course it's good to think about what you're passing, and why! Nobody disagrees with that. The issue is, can you think carefully enough, consistently enough, so that you don't need static types? Can your coworkers - all of them? What about future you, and your future coworkers? What about that time that you're in a hurry, or going on vacation the next day, and you're not at the top of your game? If computers have taught us anything, it's that automatic processes are more reliable than manual ones. Personally, I just inherited a code base that is a decade old. I haven't measured, but I'm pretty sure that it's more than 100,000 lines. My current coworkers have two weeks longer on the code base than I do. Static types make this a lot easier. And, if your approach to static typing is "mush-mash that passes the compiler", no, static typing may not save you. But dynamic typing wouldn't, either, with that approach.
- jodleif 3y ago
  Can’t say I agree. Having spent about 50/50 of my career doing weak/strong typing Im more and more convinced it’s very rarely I miss static type-checks. Though I have been blessed with skilled coworkers and sane languages.
  - freilanzer 3y ago
    "I don't need a compiler because I never make mistakes".

3 ms·

Some would argue that exactly that thinking is what makes the software cleaner and better- rather than mush-mash that passes the compiler. I.e what I’m saying i

by jodleif 3y ago

tines 3y ago
Isn't this the same argument that says that we should all write assembly, because you should have to think harder and really know what you're doing?
- Aerbil313 3y ago
  The two are not even remotely comparable. Your comment is not thoughtful.
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Of course it's good to think about what you're passing, and why! Nobody disagrees with that. The issue is, can you think carefully enough, consistently enough, so that you don't need static types? Can your coworkers - all of them? What about future you, and your future coworkers? What about that time that you're in a hurry, or going on vacation the next day, and you're not at the top of your game? If computers have taught us anything, it's that automatic processes are more reliable than manual ones. Personally, I just inherited a code base that is a decade old. I haven't measured, but I'm pretty sure that it's more than 100,000 lines. My current coworkers have two weeks longer on the code base than I do. Static types make this a lot easier. And, if your approach to static typing is "mush-mash that passes the compiler", no, static typing may not save you. But dynamic typing wouldn't, either, with that approach.
- jodleif 3y ago
  Can’t say I agree. Having spent about 50/50 of my career doing weak/strong typing Im more and more convinced it’s very rarely I miss static type-checks. Though I have been blessed with skilled coworkers and sane languages.
  - freilanzer 3y ago
    "I don't need a compiler because I never make mistakes".