Those of you who’ve done both: what do you like about statically typed languages (vs. dynamic)?
-
The type is not the proof, it is the statement to be proven by a program. In any case, expressing all necessary behaviors as types is impractical; but as tests is trivial.
Further, using types appropriately, has the same practical outcome as writing infinity tests, but with zero effort and zero hindrance. Where is that trade-off exactly?
-
-
Of course some things are unprovable in any type system. And tests to prove trivial things are really irritating and unproductive to write. So it’s worth having a mix.
-
That wholly depends on the type system. Nobody writes tests for this type, even in an undecidable system: forall p. p -> p because that would be foolish. You have a proof and tests are redundant. Bob's argumentation consistently depends on rubbish type systems and side-effects
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
No, not even close. I can completely replace static types with tests. I cannot completely replace tests with static types.
-
That's definitively not true. Want me to write the code for which you will never be able to write tests?
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.