3 ms·
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 cor
by 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 agoUmmm wouldn't that be check the return value which the type checker doesn't already know?
- 90s_dev 1y agoType 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 agoIronically 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?