3 ms·
Your post reminds me of the old runtime vs compile time language debates of old (for me). Some would argue duck typing is all that we need, and that lots of tes
by unshavedyak 1y ago
Your post reminds me of the old runtime vs compile time language debates of old (for me). Some would argue duck typing is all that we need, and that lots of tests can cover the missing types/etc. Eventually i realized that i'm just manually implementing compile time typing by way of robust tests to cover interface requirements.
- sdeframond 1y ago> Eventually i realized that i'm just manually implementing compile time typing by way of robust tests to cover interface requirements This, so much this!
- dataflow 1y agoNote that duck-typing can still be a compile-time thing: it's basically what you'd get in C++ if you use auto and templates for everything. The trade-off between compile-time and run-time checking depends in large part on the time needed to address the issue. It's not really black and white. People just don't want to wait forever for static verification - I think that's kind of why clang-static-analyzer isn't used as much as clang-tidy.