3 ms·
> Unmaintainable code is unmaintainable. Sure, but not all unmaintainable codes are equal. Code without types is orders harder to maintain and modify, even w
by zak_mc_kracken 11y ago
> Unmaintainable code is unmaintainable.
Sure, but not all unmaintainable codes are equal.
Code without types is orders harder to maintain and modify, even with extensive code coverage (because you can never really now how extensive that coverage is).
Also, the absence of type annotations make the simple human understanding of such code extremely harder.
- jonnybgood 11y agoAre you just giving your anecdotal experience or do you have something to support your claims?
- Retra 11y agoSeems like a perfectly reasonable counter-point to someone else's anecdote...
- jonnybgood 11y agoExcept that one person actually made an anecdote and the other is making unsubstantiated claims. I would like to know if there is any truth in their claims or is it just another anecdote.
- zak_mc_kracken 11y agoPrograms that contain more semantic information are easier for both humans and tools to reason about, it didn't even occur to me that this would be a controversial statement.
- learc83 11y agoEvery claim that's been made in this thread is based on anecdotal experience. Maybe in 50 years software will be mature enough that we'll have actual empirical data to back up our design/tooling decisions. But for now, almost no one is seriously interested in testing this stuff with well designed (and well funded) studies.
- jonnybgood 11y agoI realize this. I'm just hoping someone has come across some knowledge that I'm not aware of.
- taeric 11y agoWorse than code without types, is code without a solid vision for what was intended.
- Roboprog 11y agoI hear you. Overuse of "Spring" configuration makes me crazy. It's like some terrorist organization where you never know your contact's real name, and nobody knows anybody else in the organization, in case the "coupling police" try to bust up a cell. "We always just called him Otto" (autoinject)