3 ms·
Types are invariants, but only some invariants can be expressed as types. The most complex invariants -- which are the most difficult to keep working as the co
by ScottBurson 12y ago
Types are invariants, but only some invariants can be expressed as types. The most complex invariants -- which are the most difficult to keep working as the code evolves -- generally can't be expressed as types. This is why, to me, static typing as a religion is not attractive.
On the other hand, type systems are improving. On the other other hand, no computably checkable type system will ever let us express all our invariants. So this question will never be entirely settled.
- theseoafs 12y ago> On the other other hand, no computably checkable type system will ever let us express all our invariants. So this question will never be entirely settled. I don't understand. Unless we can produce a type system which literally prevents all errors, type systems are useless?
- ScottBurson 12y agoWhere did I say they were useless? When I say that static typing as a religion does not appeal to me, I mean that I think dynamically-typed languages are reasonable choices for some kinds of programs, and that I do not agree with the sentiment quoted in the article that their use should be considered grounds for revocation of one's degree. That doesn't mean I don't see the point of static typing as well.