6 ms·

>which makes an unwarranted equivalence of all languages that have 'static type checking': No it doesn't. Read what you quoted, it says nothing even remotely

>which makes an unwarranted equivalence of all languages that have 'static type checking': No it doesn't. Read what you quoted, it says nothing even remotely resembling "this benefit applies to all languages with static typing". It is testing static typing, not a specific language. It uses the best static typing system to do so. You are entirely inventing the notion that this must then apply to java. > If the study was meant to comprehend such a broad category as 'static type systems,' and from the explicit language of the study, it clearly was, then absolutely Java must necessarily be included No it mustn't. Comparing the best of dynamic vs the best of static is a useful test. Just as nobody is complaining they didn't use a worse language than python, it makes no sense to complain they didn't use a worse language than haskell. You don't draw conclusions about the potential of X by examining the worst example of X possible.

cantankerous 14y ago
This. Not all statically typed languages are created equal. Java's type system is old and is not state of the art. I wish people would stop using it as a straw man when anybody brings up static typing. Java was state of the art 20 years ago, but it's definitely not the case any more.
- davesims 14y ago
  Had the study qualified itself to merely "Haskell vs. Python" with deference given to the statistical significance of the sample size, you'd have a point. It wasn't me that brought all static typing, which of course includes Java, into the question at hand -- it was the study itself.
  - papsosouid 14y ago
    Yes, it was you. Why do you think the comparison should be "really bad static type system" vs "really good dynamic type system"? In what way does that make the test more useful? Allow me to say this again, as I do not know how to be any clearer: You do not test the potential of something by using the worst possible example of it. The only point of your desire is to reinforce the strawman that java = static typing. A test of "do airbags help prevent deaths" would be a very poor test if it used anything other than the best possible airbag technology.
    - cantankerous 14y ago
      Since this hasn't been already mentioned, and I run the risk of really flaming things up. Java has a very high propensity of generating runtime type errors. This is easily done by skirting the type checker with casting, which is commonplace. The upshot of me saying this is that I'm actually on the fence of even considering Java to be a statically-typed language for this reason...which is part of why I disagree with the parent even using it as an example of a statically typed language equivalent to the one from this post in a counterexample (also included in this is C, C++, and the rest of that family).
      - sbmassey 14y ago
        As soon as you start using reflection in Java, you're doing non-statically-typed programming. Since a lot of popular Java frameworks use reflection implicitly - such as Spring, Hibernate, etc - that includes a lot of Java code that's out there. And also, even if you carefully put a layer of explicit typechecking between the reflection based code, and the statically typed stuff, you're still throwing out the Java generics typechecking since none of that exists at runtime, and so your ArrayList<String> can mysteriously contain non-String types when you finally access it.
    - anamax 14y ago
      > You do not test the potential of something by using the worst possible example of it. So? Folks don't use the "potential", they use the real. They're asking questions like "should I use Java or Python". > do airbags help prevent deaths" would be a very poor test if it used anything other than the best possible airbag technology. That's not how things actually work. You decide between what's available. The performance of the best possible airbags is irrelevant. The real question is the cost and benefits of airbags that are likely to be deployed.
      - papsosouid 14y ago
        >So? Folks don't use the "potential", they use the real. Haskell is real. >They're asking questions like "should I use Java or Python". That's wonderful, but it has nothing to do with the subject at hand, which was the question "can static typing reduce the number of bugs?". If you want an answer to a different question, don't complain about the answer given for this question, go find someone answering the question you want answered. >That's not how things actually work. You decide between what's available. The performance of the best possible airbags is irrelevant. The real question is the cost and benefits of airbags that are likely to be deployed. Why can't anyone follow a simple line of reasoning without resorting to fallacies? He tested the best airbags available. Not theoretical airbags that don't exist. He tested a car with the best airbags available to one without. The airbags were a benefit. You and the other guy making up fallacies insist that this isn't a fair comparison, because you want to drive a car where the airbags deploy 5 seconds after impact. Your crappy car isn't relevant to the question of "can airbags save lives".
- silentbicycle 14y ago
  Java wasn't even state of the art 20 years ago. ML dates back to the 70s.
  - cantankerous 14y ago
    I agree with you, but I think we might be in the minority.
davesims 14y ago
>it says nothing even remotely resembling "this benefit applies to all languages with static typing". That is precisely what it says, and that is reiterated later: "...the conclusion can be reached that...in practice [unit testing] is an inadequate replacement for static type checking." I'm not sure what you're reading, but there's no qualifications in the language used here regarding the idea of 'static type checking,' nothing so modest about the scope of the conclusion as claiming it was merely a "useful test" as you put it. It was a sweeping generalization about two very broad and extremely complex categories of languages. Had the conclusions used more moderate language and qualified itself adequately, I wouldn't have a problem. But all that has been shown here, is that in some contexts more care needs to be taken writing unit tests in a dynamic environment to catch some errors that are automatically caught in static environments. That is all that the data warrants.
- papsosouid 14y ago
  >I'm not sure what you're reading, but there's no qualifications in the language used here That is precisely my point. You are saying "this comparison of coke vs pepsi is no good because they used cold coke, and when I drink warm coke it isn't very good". Yeah, no shit. Stop drinking warm coke. Your decision to drink warm soda has no bearing on the test of cold soda vs cold soda.
  - davesims 14y ago
    > Yeah, no shit. Stop drinking warm coke. Fine, then don't claim something like "All cokes in all contexts at all temperatures are better than all pepsis in all contexts at all temperatures." This is equivalent to what the study does with static vs. dynamic. Your argument, if you actually had a point, would be something along the lines of, "wait I'm talking about this boutique hand-crafted cola (Haskell) I get at Whole Foods, not that old Coke (Java), that's 20 years out of date!" You're trying to retro-actively reduce the scope of a study you didn't write. The conclusions clearly use generic language that brings all static typed languages into a comparison with all dynamic languages. The false equivalence is not mine! It's the study's. If you want it differently, go write your own study that reduces the scope of the conclusions.
anamax 14y ago
> It uses the best static typing system to do so. It doesn't use the best dynamic language or best unit tests.
- papsosouid 14y ago
  Then you should be proposing he use whatever language you feel is better than python at being the best dynamic type system. The best unit tests is entirely irrelevant.
  - anamax 14y ago
    > Then you should be proposing he use whatever language you feel is better than python at being the best dynamic type system. Nope. > The best unit tests is entirely irrelevant I can find errors in programs with a spell checker. Suppose that those programs have unit tests. Do you really think that spell checker is better than unit tests?
    - papsosouid 14y ago
      Are you trolling or incapable of reading? Nobody, at any point in time suggested that static typing was an alternative to unit testing. You haven't posted a single constructive thing in this entire thread, and you waited till it was over to do your trolling so you could avoid downvotes. Grow up, or go back to reddit.

cantankerous 14y ago

This. Not all statically typed languages are created equal. Java's type system is old and is not state of the art. I wish people would stop using it as a straw man when anybody brings up static typing. Java was state of the art 20 years ago, but it's definitely not the case any more.

davesims 14y ago
Had the study qualified itself to merely "Haskell vs. Python" with deference given to the statistical significance of the sample size, you'd have a point. It wasn't me that brought all static typing, which of course includes Java, into the question at hand -- it was the study itself.
- papsosouid 14y ago
  Yes, it was you. Why do you think the comparison should be "really bad static type system" vs "really good dynamic type system"? In what way does that make the test more useful? Allow me to say this again, as I do not know how to be any clearer: You do not test the potential of something by using the worst possible example of it. The only point of your desire is to reinforce the strawman that java = static typing. A test of "do airbags help prevent deaths" would be a very poor test if it used anything other than the best possible airbag technology.
  - cantankerous 14y ago
    Since this hasn't been already mentioned, and I run the risk of really flaming things up. Java has a very high propensity of generating runtime type errors. This is easily done by skirting the type checker with casting, which is commonplace. The upshot of me saying this is that I'm actually on the fence of even considering Java to be a statically-typed language for this reason...which is part of why I disagree with the parent even using it as an example of a statically typed language equivalent to the one from this post in a counterexample (also included in this is C, C++, and the rest of that family).
    - sbmassey 14y ago
      As soon as you start using reflection in Java, you're doing non-statically-typed programming. Since a lot of popular Java frameworks use reflection implicitly - such as Spring, Hibernate, etc - that includes a lot of Java code that's out there. And also, even if you carefully put a layer of explicit typechecking between the reflection based code, and the statically typed stuff, you're still throwing out the Java generics typechecking since none of that exists at runtime, and so your ArrayList<String> can mysteriously contain non-String types when you finally access it.
  - anamax 14y ago
    > You do not test the potential of something by using the worst possible example of it. So? Folks don't use the "potential", they use the real. They're asking questions like "should I use Java or Python". > do airbags help prevent deaths" would be a very poor test if it used anything other than the best possible airbag technology. That's not how things actually work. You decide between what's available. The performance of the best possible airbags is irrelevant. The real question is the cost and benefits of airbags that are likely to be deployed.
    - papsosouid 14y ago
      >So? Folks don't use the "potential", they use the real. Haskell is real. >They're asking questions like "should I use Java or Python". That's wonderful, but it has nothing to do with the subject at hand, which was the question "can static typing reduce the number of bugs?". If you want an answer to a different question, don't complain about the answer given for this question, go find someone answering the question you want answered. >That's not how things actually work. You decide between what's available. The performance of the best possible airbags is irrelevant. The real question is the cost and benefits of airbags that are likely to be deployed. Why can't anyone follow a simple line of reasoning without resorting to fallacies? He tested the best airbags available. Not theoretical airbags that don't exist. He tested a car with the best airbags available to one without. The airbags were a benefit. You and the other guy making up fallacies insist that this isn't a fair comparison, because you want to drive a car where the airbags deploy 5 seconds after impact. Your crappy car isn't relevant to the question of "can airbags save lives".
silentbicycle 14y ago
Java wasn't even state of the art 20 years ago. ML dates back to the 70s.
- cantankerous 14y ago
  I agree with you, but I think we might be in the minority.

davesims 14y ago

>it says nothing even remotely resembling "this benefit applies to all languages with static typing". That is precisely what it says, and that is reiterated later: "...the conclusion can be reached that...in practice [unit testing] is an inadequate replacement for static type checking." I'm not sure what you're reading, but there's no qualifications in the language used here regarding the idea of 'static type checking,' nothing so modest about the scope of the conclusion as claiming it was merely a "useful test" as you put it. It was a sweeping generalization about two very broad and extremely complex categories of languages. Had the conclusions used more moderate language and qualified itself adequately, I wouldn't have a problem. But all that has been shown here, is that in some contexts more care needs to be taken writing unit tests in a dynamic environment to catch some errors that are automatically caught in static environments. That is all that the data warrants.

papsosouid 14y ago
>I'm not sure what you're reading, but there's no qualifications in the language used here That is precisely my point. You are saying "this comparison of coke vs pepsi is no good because they used cold coke, and when I drink warm coke it isn't very good". Yeah, no shit. Stop drinking warm coke. Your decision to drink warm soda has no bearing on the test of cold soda vs cold soda.
- davesims 14y ago
  > Yeah, no shit. Stop drinking warm coke. Fine, then don't claim something like "All cokes in all contexts at all temperatures are better than all pepsis in all contexts at all temperatures." This is equivalent to what the study does with static vs. dynamic. Your argument, if you actually had a point, would be something along the lines of, "wait I'm talking about this boutique hand-crafted cola (Haskell) I get at Whole Foods, not that old Coke (Java), that's 20 years out of date!" You're trying to retro-actively reduce the scope of a study you didn't write. The conclusions clearly use generic language that brings all static typed languages into a comparison with all dynamic languages. The false equivalence is not mine! It's the study's. If you want it differently, go write your own study that reduces the scope of the conclusions.

anamax 14y ago

> It uses the best static typing system to do so. It doesn't use the best dynamic language or best unit tests.

papsosouid 14y ago
Then you should be proposing he use whatever language you feel is better than python at being the best dynamic type system. The best unit tests is entirely irrelevant.
- anamax 14y ago
  > Then you should be proposing he use whatever language you feel is better than python at being the best dynamic type system. Nope. > The best unit tests is entirely irrelevant I can find errors in programs with a spell checker. Suppose that those programs have unit tests. Do you really think that spell checker is better than unit tests?
  - papsosouid 14y ago
    Are you trolling or incapable of reading? Nobody, at any point in time suggested that static typing was an alternative to unit testing. You haven't posted a single constructive thing in this entire thread, and you waited till it was over to do your trolling so you could avoid downvotes. Grow up, or go back to reddit.