3 ms·
No one is against static typing. This thing that some people, myself included, oppose -- with good reason -- is mandatory static typing. The idea that anyone
by lisper 3y ago
No one is against static typing. This thing that some people, myself included, oppose -- with good reason -- is mandatory static typing. The idea that anyone advocates giving up the ability to catch bugs at compile time if it can be done at no cost is a straw man.
- berkes 3y agoWho is arguing for mandatory static typing? Even the article we're discussing points out there are cases for no- or dynamic typing.
- lucasyvas 3y agoI am arguing for it, for one. There isn't a single good reason that it should be optional in a production code base moving forward. If you started with a dynamically typed language, you should be introducing type hinting and enforcement at a CI/CD step as soon as yesterday.
- berkes 3y agoBut you too make exceptions, right here. All I'm pointing out, is that people who oppose strong static typing on the base of "but we don't want it everywhere" are drawing the wrong conclusions, because, indeed, we don't want it everywhere. We (I) do, however, need and want it in far more places than it's used today.