3 ms·
For those dinging the article, please check this line > when discussing architecture of code or reviewing a pull request, I will often times push back on chang
by SPBS 2y ago
For those dinging the article, please check this line
> when discussing architecture of code or reviewing a pull request, I will often times push back on changes that add more complexity in the type system. The reason is because, even if a change adds “type safety,” this extra complexity is only warranted if it achieves our primary goal, namely reducing runtime errors.
It's poorly emphasized, but the author is referring to Typescript-style static typing which can come with a truck load of complexity. Something like Go's type system is fine (there's nothing sophisticated about it) but Typescript's type system gives you enough rope to hang yourself with.
- Dylan16807 2y agoThat's a weird way to describe the author's stance when they say that Typescript is "the only thing that keeps me sane when working on frontend code".
- SPBS 2y agoYes, it's this line that gives the hint that the author means Typescript when they mention they will "often times push back on changes that add more complexity in the type system". They're referring to code that tries to make the type system do too much in the name of "type safety" and end up with overly-complex code. You simply can't get that kind of complexity with a dumb type system like Go's. They still love Typescript, but they don't abuse the type system.
- Dylan16807 2y agoI would still not refer to that type of complexity as "Typescript-style" if I'm trying to interpret the author. The kind they like is also "Typescript-style".
- IshKebab 2y agoI probably wouldn't use Go of all things as a good example of a static type system. It even copied the null mistake from C!