4 ms·
No, you interpreted it as condescending. Just because I enjoy unbridled optimism does not mean I am condescending. You are suggesting that you are infallible,
by asdasf 13y ago
No, you interpreted it as condescending. Just because I enjoy unbridled optimism does not mean I am condescending.
You are suggesting that you are infallible, as the "dead simple errors" you refer to get out into production systems every single day. More than one serious security hole in rails has been due to very similar problems. You are very much implying that you are a better programmer than the entire rails team. And virtually everyone else, as examples of these kinds of bugs are everywhere.
And finally, crying straw man while presenting a straw man is poor form. If a particular library has a deficiency, that's unfortunate. But it has absolutely nothing to do with type safety. Haskell for example is more type safe, and it has two http client libraries, both of which provide safety while also allowing arbitrary headers (and methods, etc).
- Myrmornis 13y agoI love that there are people who say things like this totally seriously. No, it was condescending.
- EpicEng 13y agoWho cares about your super awesome Haskell library? You have meandered our of context. My response was in response to a defense of this particular implementation. If your abstraction sucks then I don't want it as it will cause me more headache than it is worth. That's the point. EDIT: Eh... looking back at my original comment I don't think I got that across at all. It reads as more of a rant against a typed system in general, which is not what I intended.