4 ms·
"Best solution" is a proxy here for the software you really want. That's what you need to go for; if you don't, I don't really want to use your software, althou
by auggierose 3y ago
"Best solution" is a proxy here for the software you really want. That's what you need to go for; if you don't, I don't really want to use your software, although I might have to, because there is nothing else.
Again, a good general type system that catches simple mistakes is better than nothing, I agree with you here! But Rust for example, isn't that. It is quite invasive in terms of how you have to think about your program, and if your way of thinking or your particular problem aligns with Rust's approach, great. Most of the time, it will not. So if you choose for example Tauri over Electron, most of the time, that will be the wrong choice.
Anyway, static type systems are a crutch. They've been useful in the past, mainly because they allow to automate partial correctness. In the future, we will have something better (I am not saying we will have something "optimal", although it might feel that way compared to the current state of things).
- naasking 3y agoYes, Rust is invasive because it guarantees certain properties that are otherwise very difficult to guarantee, and by all reports, once you build the requisite mental model it becomes much more straightforward, which is typical of static typing and programming in general. Re: static typing being a crutch, I disagree, and I think more, better typing is in our future, not less. We'll see how it goes.
- auggierose 3y agoBut let's be clear what we are talking about here, so we can see who wins the bet: I am betting against static typing, but on general logic. So I am betting against a static type system being the future, instead I think a general logic will be the future, not only of programming, but of all engineering.