4 ms·
Conversely, do you also consider the downsides and consequences of not having types? If you don't, then you're blind to whole categories of issues. As a good en
by Hojojo 2y ago
Conversely, do you also consider the downsides and consequences of not having types? If you don't, then you're blind to whole categories of issues. As a good engineer, you need to be able to reason both ways to come to a reasonable solution, not just one that conforms to your particular ideology.
- necovek 2y agoHow do you understand the sentence above: > Benefits of types should be carefully balanced against the cost of introducing them Does "benefits of types" not imply to you that there are downsides to not having them?
- Hojojo 2y agoThe rest of the comment was clearly framed in a way that any cost of not having types might as well not exist. Reinforced by the very first sentence of how one should be afraid of introducing types.
- necovek 2y agoIs it uncommon to focus on the things that support your counter argument in a discussion? Does one need to always "fairly" represent both sides when it's clear that there are obvious properties that you are not discounting? This is a discussion, and that was a single comment — I couldn't imagine people would see it as a comprehensive look at a topic as complex as types in programming. In that case, why not respond to the arguments I raise but instead attack what was never stated? I can see how part of the comment can prejudice you to an unbalanced opinion, but that's more on the reader than on the author — at least I think so.