4 ms·

Not really: https://twitter.com/maccaw/status/576437511729221632 https://twitter.com/maccaw/status/576437511729221632 If you want true stability you probably h

Not really: https://twitter.com/maccaw/status/576437511729221632 https://twitter.com/maccaw/status/576437511729221632 If you want true stability you probably have to switch to a language with a stronger type system. That Sinatra bug proves that even small codebases can suffer from basic type errors.

grandalf 12y ago
uh, it appears that a chance to Rack's API caused that bug, no?
- beat 12y ago
  Same problem, though. Ruby's dynamic typing comes with some wonderful advantages (yay metaprogramming!) but some pretty bad disadvantages as well.
  - grandalf 12y ago
    Definitely. I like things like contracts and optional type annotations very much. Some code is just hard to understand without those kinds of things, which leads to bugs.
pjonesdotca 12y ago
Actually a good testing suite fixes that issue. It's probably the most bogus "issue" strong type addicts bring up.
- jallmann 12y ago
  The only thing better than having tests is not needing tests. That's what a robust type system gives you. Type systems don't eliminate all testing, but they do eliminate a large swath of possible errors that need to be tested for, like the one that has (had?) been afflicting Sinatra.
  - erokar 12y ago
    You might want to watch this talk for some data on this subject: https://vimeo.com/74354480 https://vimeo.com/74354480 "Some programming language theorists would have us believe that the one true path to working systems lies in powerful and expressive type systems which allow us to encode rich constraints into programs at the time they are created. If these academic computer scientists would get out more, they would soon discover an increasing incidence of software developed in languages such a Python, Ruby and Clojure which use dynamic, albeit strong, type systems. They would probably be surprised to find that much of this software—in spite of their well-founded type-theoretic hubris—actually works, and is indeed reliable out of all proportion to their expectations."
    - counterplex 12y ago
      The politest put down ever?
    - ssmoot 12y ago
      As someone who worked with Ruby since ~1.8.1, has written a ridiculous amount of OSS Ruby and now works mostly in Scala, this is the exact opposite of my experience. YMMV, but I've never seen the Ruby project that didn't suffer from stupid bugs even the most basic type system would have caught. One of the biggest advantage of type-systems for me is that they don't suffer from No True Scotsman. If you don't have a test that covered this bug, people are happy to tell you you're doing it wrong. The type-system doesn't have that problem. It doesn't "rot". It expresses only what you tell it to. It enforces maintenance and rigor in a way that tests, as non-integral code, fundamentally can't. But that's just my opinion man.
      - grandalf 12y ago
        What's your thought on something like contracts or facebook's flow (for js) ?
    - jallmann 12y ago
      I can't watch because no subtitles, but man that intro is condescending. Not saying that academics are completely innocent either, but maybe if the description focused more on the substance of the data, it wouldn't seem like the smugness was a cover-up for trying to rationalize their choice of language. Anyway, I'm no PL theorist, only a schlub that's a better programmer because of ML. Yeah yeah, sample size of one...

grandalf 12y ago

uh, it appears that a chance to Rack's API caused that bug, no?

beat 12y ago
Same problem, though. Ruby's dynamic typing comes with some wonderful advantages (yay metaprogramming!) but some pretty bad disadvantages as well.
- grandalf 12y ago
  Definitely. I like things like contracts and optional type annotations very much. Some code is just hard to understand without those kinds of things, which leads to bugs.

pjonesdotca 12y ago

Actually a good testing suite fixes that issue. It's probably the most bogus "issue" strong type addicts bring up.

jallmann 12y ago
The only thing better than having tests is not needing tests. That's what a robust type system gives you. Type systems don't eliminate all testing, but they do eliminate a large swath of possible errors that need to be tested for, like the one that has (had?) been afflicting Sinatra.
- erokar 12y ago
  You might want to watch this talk for some data on this subject: https://vimeo.com/74354480 https://vimeo.com/74354480 "Some programming language theorists would have us believe that the one true path to working systems lies in powerful and expressive type systems which allow us to encode rich constraints into programs at the time they are created. If these academic computer scientists would get out more, they would soon discover an increasing incidence of software developed in languages such a Python, Ruby and Clojure which use dynamic, albeit strong, type systems. They would probably be surprised to find that much of this software—in spite of their well-founded type-theoretic hubris—actually works, and is indeed reliable out of all proportion to their expectations."
  - counterplex 12y ago
    The politest put down ever?
  - ssmoot 12y ago
    As someone who worked with Ruby since ~1.8.1, has written a ridiculous amount of OSS Ruby and now works mostly in Scala, this is the exact opposite of my experience. YMMV, but I've never seen the Ruby project that didn't suffer from stupid bugs even the most basic type system would have caught. One of the biggest advantage of type-systems for me is that they don't suffer from No True Scotsman. If you don't have a test that covered this bug, people are happy to tell you you're doing it wrong. The type-system doesn't have that problem. It doesn't "rot". It expresses only what you tell it to. It enforces maintenance and rigor in a way that tests, as non-integral code, fundamentally can't. But that's just my opinion man.
    - grandalf 12y ago
      What's your thought on something like contracts or facebook's flow (for js) ?
  - jallmann 12y ago
    I can't watch because no subtitles, but man that intro is condescending. Not saying that academics are completely innocent either, but maybe if the description focused more on the substance of the data, it wouldn't seem like the smugness was a cover-up for trying to rationalize their choice of language. Anyway, I'm no PL theorist, only a schlub that's a better programmer because of ML. Yeah yeah, sample size of one...