4 ms·

It’s no longer up for debate, true. But not in the way you fervently want to believe. Once again: people have tried to show the truth of this for a long time,

It’s no longer up for debate, true. But not in the way you fervently want to believe. Once again: people have tried to show the truth of this for a long time, and they have consistently failed.

Chabsff 3y ago
I'm arguing that the studies linked in that blog post are fundamentally flawed because they only take into account first-pass development, and fail to take long-term maintainability into consideration. And this is silly because that's where the main value of type systems reside. > This paper presents an empirical study with 49 subjects that studies the impact of a static type system for the development of a parser over 27 hours working time.
- mpweiher 3y ago
  That is not true. There are some studies like that, but there are others as well. And remember that all these studies were trying to find a positive effect, but failed to do so.
  - Chabsff 3y ago
    Well... It is true of everything in that blog post. But I am wiling to have my mind changed. I would be really interested in seeing a study that failed to find a benefit of type systems for refactoring tasks in large projects. The example I posted in my initial comment seems pretty open-and-shut to me, so I'm curious.
    - mpweiher 3y ago
      > Well... It is true of everything in that blog post. That turns out not to be the case. > I would be really interested in seeing a study that failed to find a benefit of type systems for refactoring tasks in large projects. You're inverting the burden of proof here. People who claim that something is beneficial are the ones who have to show that it is. Making a claim and then shouting "prove me wrong!" is not how science works. Not even computer science.
      - spion 3y ago
        https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- boxed 3y ago
  And yet, if the signal was that strong, it should be clear. It's not.

It’s no longer up for debate, true. But not in the way you fervently want to believe. Once again: people have tried to show the truth of this for a long time, and they have consistently failed.

Chabsff 3y ago

I'm arguing that the studies linked in that blog post are fundamentally flawed because they only take into account first-pass development, and fail to take long-term maintainability into consideration. And this is silly because that's where the main value of type systems reside. > This paper presents an empirical study with 49 subjects that studies the impact of a static type system for the development of a parser over 27 hours working time.

mpweiher 3y ago
That is not true. There are some studies like that, but there are others as well. And remember that all these studies were trying to find a positive effect, but failed to do so.
- Chabsff 3y ago
  Well... It is true of everything in that blog post. But I am wiling to have my mind changed. I would be really interested in seeing a study that failed to find a benefit of type systems for refactoring tasks in large projects. The example I posted in my initial comment seems pretty open-and-shut to me, so I'm curious.
  - mpweiher 3y ago
    > Well... It is true of everything in that blog post. That turns out not to be the case. > I would be really interested in seeing a study that failed to find a benefit of type systems for refactoring tasks in large projects. You're inverting the burden of proof here. People who claim that something is beneficial are the ones who have to show that it is. Making a claim and then shouting "prove me wrong!" is not how science works. Not even computer science.
    - spion 3y ago
      https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
boxed 3y ago
And yet, if the signal was that strong, it should be clear. It's not.