3 ms·

> What? I disagree with your notion of equating types with tests. They are fundamentally different. Types provide substantially stronger guarantees without hav

> What? I disagree with your notion of equating types with tests. They are fundamentally different. Types provide substantially stronger guarantees without having to execute any code. > The type system does need more information from the user to allow the same kind of flexibility in a type safe environment. Did you have a look at Haskell? Or any other language with type inference? The connection you are trying to establish between "untyped == no need to specify types explicitly" and "typed == necessary to specify types explicitly" is patently wrong. Having a helpful compiler doesn't mean that the language has to suck. I don't want to offend you, but your comments create the impression that you are lacking experience with a modern, statically typed language.

Skinney 13y ago
> I disagree with your notion of equating types with tests. They are fundamentally different. Types provide substantially stronger guarantees without having to execute any code. I'm not equating types with tests. I'm saying that type errors comes to light when a unit test for a given code is run, because you will get unexpected results and/or an exception is thrown. > Did you have a look at Haskell? Or any other language with type inference? The connection you are trying to establish between "untyped == no need to specify types explicitly" and "typed == necessary to specify types explicitly" is patently wrong. I started learning Haskell but stopped when I came to monads. I've also experience with other languages that provide type inference like Go and F#. Go requires you to define interfaces (something you don't need in a dynamic language like, say, javascript). Haskell also has features that require the developer declare something upfront (types and type derivation), as do F# (discriminated unions and/or types). My actual example was regarding class inheritance and implementing interfaces. Polymorphisism through inheritance or interfaces is great in a statically typed language, but not required or even possible in certain dynamic languages. > Having a helpful compiler doesn't mean that the language has to suck. I don't want to offend you, but your comments create the impression that you are lacking experience with a modern, statically typed language. I never said statically typed languages suck. I've developed an app in C# which was a great experience, and at my day job I work in C++ (which IMHO is a sucky language, but not due to being statically typed). Haskell is also a great language, as is Go and C#. What I did say is that statically typed languages often require more code, which (depending on who you talk to) slows down development compared to a dynamically typed language. Statically typed languages does however usually entail better performance and (sometimes) smaller memory footprint than dynamically typed languages. There is a tradeoff, but that doesn't make one more suited for real world applications than the other, which there exists numerous examples of.
- tome 13y ago
  > Haskell also has features that require the developer declare something upfront (types and type derivation) Generally not. Type inference does that for you.
  - Skinney 13y ago
    You can't use custom types without defining them first. Sure, you don't have to decleare where you use them usually, due to type inference, but for type inference to work you actually need to define a type.

Skinney 13y ago

> I disagree with your notion of equating types with tests. They are fundamentally different. Types provide substantially stronger guarantees without having to execute any code. I'm not equating types with tests. I'm saying that type errors comes to light when a unit test for a given code is run, because you will get unexpected results and/or an exception is thrown. > Did you have a look at Haskell? Or any other language with type inference? The connection you are trying to establish between "untyped == no need to specify types explicitly" and "typed == necessary to specify types explicitly" is patently wrong. I started learning Haskell but stopped when I came to monads. I've also experience with other languages that provide type inference like Go and F#. Go requires you to define interfaces (something you don't need in a dynamic language like, say, javascript). Haskell also has features that require the developer declare something upfront (types and type derivation), as do F# (discriminated unions and/or types). My actual example was regarding class inheritance and implementing interfaces. Polymorphisism through inheritance or interfaces is great in a statically typed language, but not required or even possible in certain dynamic languages. > Having a helpful compiler doesn't mean that the language has to suck. I don't want to offend you, but your comments create the impression that you are lacking experience with a modern, statically typed language. I never said statically typed languages suck. I've developed an app in C# which was a great experience, and at my day job I work in C++ (which IMHO is a sucky language, but not due to being statically typed). Haskell is also a great language, as is Go and C#. What I did say is that statically typed languages often require more code, which (depending on who you talk to) slows down development compared to a dynamically typed language. Statically typed languages does however usually entail better performance and (sometimes) smaller memory footprint than dynamically typed languages. There is a tradeoff, but that doesn't make one more suited for real world applications than the other, which there exists numerous examples of.

tome 13y ago
> Haskell also has features that require the developer declare something upfront (types and type derivation) Generally not. Type inference does that for you.
- Skinney 13y ago
  You can't use custom types without defining them first. Sure, you don't have to decleare where you use them usually, due to type inference, but for type inference to work you actually need to define a type.