- no type errors at runtime - no type errors at runtime - no type errors at runtime - no type errors at runtime - no type errors at runtime - no type errors at runtime - no type errors at runtime - no type errors at runtime - no type errors at runtime - no type errors at runtime
-
-
"No type errors" is a bit of an exaggeration since no static type system can encode all interesting information about all types yet. E.g. "odd u32" in Rust or "Prime Nat" in a dependently-typed language.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
this is fair; "no fundamental mismatches between broad data types" just doesn't sound as good though
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mycoliza @BRIAN_____ and
I suppose this is also not completely true, depending on how strict the statically-typed typed language is, but I wasn't really thinking of C when I wrote this
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
IMO it's important to free ourselves from false dichotomies like "static vs dynamic" or "obsolete vs. dependent" type systems. One can write C code in a way that's much more like Rust than what's typical, for example. A of what people think of as C isn't actually legal C anyway.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BRIAN_____ @mycoliza and
There are some kinds of programs I prefer to write in Python and I don't think they'd be better in Haskell or Rust, especially considering development time. (People have made more money porting my Haskell code to Python than I made writing the original Haskell code.)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I don't disagree; for example, I don't think I'd like writing statically-typed shell scripts very much. That said, the question was "what do you like about statically-typed languages?", not "why are static types always unilaterallu superior?"
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Here’s my basic issue: Python, Ruby and JS are often picked at the beginning of a project’s life, but the first time there needs to be a major refactor, there is a HUGE amount of uncertainty due to the lack of type checking.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Bash is great so long as it’s essentially a list of tasks, and not much more complexity that if statements to disable one part or enable something else.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
To me the question is this: are you building something to last (ie it needs to be hardened and have the code paths verified) or are you building something that’s throwaway? Many think they’re building something that’s throwaway, and then a billion $ company is built around crap.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.