Those of you who’ve done both: what do you like about statically typed languages (vs. dynamic)?
-
-
Replying to @sarahmei
Statically typed languages are like having a spell checker AND a grammar checker up front. Dynamic languages mean I won’t know if I spelled anything wrong until I get my paper back from the teacher.
29 replies 213 retweets 791 likes -
Replying to @shanselman @sarahmei
Unless, of course, you practice TDD. Then you know immediately because you are writing a very specific purpose spelling and grammar checker.
18 replies 14 retweets 77 likes -
Tests are not proofs.
1 reply 2 retweets 12 likes -
Neither are types.
5 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @unclebobmartin @jonharrop and
Um. That’s exactly what they are. Perhaps you meant to say “types are only able to prove some things about your code, and I find that less useful than others do, but I see where you’re coming from”
1 reply 0 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @sebastiangood @jonharrop and
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.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @unclebobmartin @sebastiangood and
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?
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @dibblego @sebastiangood and
No, not even close. I can completely replace static types with tests. I cannot completely replace tests with static types.
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes
I mean, what will it take for me to convince you to first, understand that this is an entire area of research that you are inadvertently undermining, and that it would be in your interest to begin studying it? Just the basics. What would it take? I'll do it.
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.