3 ms·
> Static type checking (which is what I assume you mean by "typing") can also be a massive pain in the ass that stands in the way of incremental development, N
by watwut 1y ago
> Static type checking (which is what I assume you mean by "typing") can also be a massive pain in the ass that stands in the way of incremental development,
No they dont. There is nothing about types that would make incremental develpment harder. They keep having the same benefits when being incremental.
- MangoToupe 1y ago> There is nothing about types that would make incremental develpment harder. Oh, please, this is either lack of imagination or lack of effort to think. You've never wanted to test a subset of a library halfway through a refactor?
- loglog 1y agoYes, type checkers are very good at tracking refactoring progress. If it turns out that you can proceed to test some subset, then congratulations, you found a new submodule.
- MangoToupe 1y agoI am continually astounded by the stubborn incuriosity of humans with a bone to pick.
- ninetyninenine 1y agoWhat in the world are you talking about. Please specify how lack of types helped you in your aforementioned scenario. I don't think it's a lack of curiosity from others. But it's more like fundamental lack of knowledge from you. Let's hear it. What is it are you actually talking about? Testing a subset of a library halfway though a refactor? How does a lack of types help with that?