3 ms·

i like static code because a codebase that applies types well gives you the same benefits of writing lots of tests for free.

cma 1y ago
Ironically they usually make unit tests and testing by hand in the repl harder
Spivak 1y ago
Yep, there is basically nothing else to be said. Using a static type checker isn't some moral imperative or whatever. I simply am able to write better, more correct code faster than without it. And my test suite doesn't have to do things like check the return type of the function because the type checker already knows.
- igouy 1y ago
  Ummm wouldn't that be check the return value which the type checker doesn't already know?
- 90s_dev 1y ago
  Type systems make 93% of tests obsolete. The other 7% are implied by developing new features and making sure they work as you expect. If nothing broke, you're good to go. Incidentally, it scales with a team. The more people writing code, the more people who will run into some bugs one of you introduced. In my experience, automated tests (unit or e2e) never reduced that number, but only slowed us down. I wonder if TDD & BDD were just an excuse to bill clients for more time while giving them a false sense of security.
  - theLiminator 1y ago
    Ironically the strongest advocates of dynamic languages tend to be places where a strong type system would solve a huge percentage of their bugs. Web development is mostly the munging of data together and ensuring that you're glueing stuff together correctly. Static type systems, especially ML based ones would ensure that most of this is done correctly.
  - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
    > Type systems make 93% of tests obsolete. I don't suppose I could trouble you for a source for that number?
    - 90s_dev 1y ago
      Yeah I just made it up.
      - parpfish 1y ago
        I made up a similar number, so it’s been replicated
igouy 1y ago
The benefits are not the same. Code can type check but not be correct. There's no free lunch. Some languages require explicit type definitions others don't.
- theLiminator 1y ago
  > Code can type check but not be correct. Depends on your type system. It can prove the correctness of certain properties depending on your language. Conversely, unit tests can pass but your code might not be correct.
  - igouy 1y ago
    Depends on your type system. Depends on your tests. Depends. Yet another under-specified commentary ;-)
- kibwen 1y ago
  Conversely, code can pass tests and not be correct, including in ways that would have been trivially caught by a type system. If you care about correctness, use both. Codebases written in static languages still use tests.
  - igouy 1y ago
    Yes, we care about run time behavior.
    - kibwen 1y ago
      Then you'll be happy to hear that static types do a better job of determining runtime behavior than tests do, for less time and effort.
      - igouy 1y ago
        Do you have a case studies which show that to be true?
- deleted 1y ago

cma 1y ago

Ironically they usually make unit tests and testing by hand in the repl harder

Spivak 1y ago

Yep, there is basically nothing else to be said. Using a static type checker isn't some moral imperative or whatever. I simply am able to write better, more correct code faster than without it. And my test suite doesn't have to do things like check the return type of the function because the type checker already knows.

igouy 1y ago
Ummm wouldn't that be check the return value which the type checker doesn't already know?
90s_dev 1y ago
Type systems make 93% of tests obsolete. The other 7% are implied by developing new features and making sure they work as you expect. If nothing broke, you're good to go. Incidentally, it scales with a team. The more people writing code, the more people who will run into some bugs one of you introduced. In my experience, automated tests (unit or e2e) never reduced that number, but only slowed us down. I wonder if TDD & BDD were just an excuse to bill clients for more time while giving them a false sense of security.
- theLiminator 1y ago
  Ironically the strongest advocates of dynamic languages tend to be places where a strong type system would solve a huge percentage of their bugs. Web development is mostly the munging of data together and ensuring that you're glueing stuff together correctly. Static type systems, especially ML based ones would ensure that most of this is done correctly.
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  > Type systems make 93% of tests obsolete. I don't suppose I could trouble you for a source for that number?
  - 90s_dev 1y ago
    Yeah I just made it up.
    - parpfish 1y ago
      I made up a similar number, so it’s been replicated

igouy 1y ago

The benefits are not the same. Code can type check but not be correct. There's no free lunch. Some languages require explicit type definitions others don't.

theLiminator 1y ago
> Code can type check but not be correct. Depends on your type system. It can prove the correctness of certain properties depending on your language. Conversely, unit tests can pass but your code might not be correct.
- igouy 1y ago
  Depends on your type system. Depends on your tests. Depends. Yet another under-specified commentary ;-)
kibwen 1y ago
Conversely, code can pass tests and not be correct, including in ways that would have been trivially caught by a type system. If you care about correctness, use both. Codebases written in static languages still use tests.
- igouy 1y ago
  Yes, we care about run time behavior.
  - kibwen 1y ago
    Then you'll be happy to hear that static types do a better job of determining runtime behavior than tests do, for less time and effort.
    - igouy 1y ago
      Do you have a case studies which show that to be true?
deleted 1y ago