6 ms·
I don't have an "academic" background, I just enjoy the subjective ergonomic advantages. At the very least, strict types obviate a class of tests that I'd previ
by gavmor 3y ago
I don't have an "academic" background, I just enjoy the subjective ergonomic advantages. At the very least, strict types obviate a class of tests that I'd previously considered indispensable.
> dynamic typing, it can lead to more errors, but in practice, most all of these are caught during testing
I think we're practicing such different styles of software design that one another's tools are a hindrance. For example, I don't think that "bugs are caught during testing" because I am testing first. Unless you mean user acceptance testing, which is uncomfortably late in the cycle.
- ActorNightly 3y agoWhen you compile the code with static types, there is a process of parsing the syntax and executing a state machine that checks all the validity of types. When running a dynamic type language, these errors are going to be caught at runtime. What Im saying is that from the perspective of code execution, there is no difference between the two as long as those checks are performed somewhere before you ship your code, whether in tests or in the act of compilation.
- gavmor 3y ago> as long as those checks are performed somewhere before you ship your code Preferably, they're performed before I push to a remote repository. Hopefully they're performed before I alt-tab away from the editor for a single second. Hopefully they're performed before I fuzzy-find a collaborator module to edit. > When running a dynamic type language, these errors are going to be caught at runtime. Only if those code paths are exercised in a test suite, or am I doing it the hard way?