3 ms·
Getting better diagnostics from secretly running a type checker as a "linter" is not the same as writing a program in a language you know is typed and which you
by habitue 3y ago
Getting better diagnostics from secretly running a type checker as a "linter" is not the same as writing a program in a language you know is typed and which you design the types first before constructing the program.
I'm sorry but this seems uncontroversial to me, I don't think this negates the point I was making at all.
- eesmith 3y agoThe linked-to literature review considers it a relevant paper. Take up your controversial issue with Dan Luu. > not the same as writing a program in a language you know is typed and which you design the types first before constructing the program You know that's not the only way to work with static types, right? Furthermore, the same DRuby paper hypothesizes "that programmers have ways of reasoning about types that compensate for the lack of static type information". It suggests that programmers are designing with types first, in their head, even in programming languages which don't support types. So I think you meant to write something more like "express" or "implement" the types first, not "design."