9 ms·

How do you understand the sentence above: > Benefits of types should be carefully balanced against the cost of introducing them Does "benefits of types" not i

• Hojojo 2y ago
  The 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 ago
    Is 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.