3 ms·
I question this "false sense of security" point. In my experience, people who prefer as much static analysis as possible, mostly based on types, are also more l
by sanderjd 3y ago
I question this "false sense of security" point. In my experience, people who prefer as much static analysis as possible, mostly based on types, are also more likely to be thinking about invariants and error cases more generally. I would go further to say that anyone who has really adopted a thinking-about-invariants-and-error-cases style of programming has almost certainly become frustrated with the amount of repetitive validation code required to accomplish that in projects with no static analysis of types.
- perrygeo 3y agoAgreed. I was more rebutting the "If it compiles, it works" mentality - which is not true for anything other than trivial examples. You still need to test that the compiled artifact actually works in a real setting, where "works" is domain-specific and defined by user's perception of value.
- sanderjd 3y agoRight. But I'm saying that I don't think that mentality actually exists. I think the mentality of people who prefer static analysis is more like "if it compiles, it has passed a huge number of test cases that I'm really glad I didn't have to write myself". But "if it compiles, it works" is a more pithy short-hand for that :)