←back to thread

873 points belter | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Kototama ◴[] No.42947000[source]
> Typed languages are essential on teams with mixed experience levels

I like this one because it puts this endless dilemma in a human context. Most discussions are technical (static typing ease refactoring and safety, dynamic typing is easier to learn and better for interactive programming etc.) and ignore the users, the programmers.

replies(5): >>42947041 #>>42947190 #>>42947740 #>>42948492 #>>42952947 #
cies ◴[] No.42947740[source]
I think the size of the code base also matters: bigger size = having types is more important.

There is a contradiction here as: bigger size = compile speed more important AND types slow down compilation. More advanced typing features slow down compilation even more.

replies(1): >>42947863 #
pjc50 ◴[] No.42947863[source]
> More advanced typing features slow down compilation even more.

C++ is a bit of an outlier here. But really people should think of typechecking as shifting fault detection earlier in the process than runtime. It doesn't matter if your test suite starts slightly quicker if you have to wait for the whole thing to run to find something you could otherwise have found with types.

replies(1): >>42947953 #
1. cies ◴[] No.42947953{3}[source]
I agree. But the nice thing about types is that they are not an afterthought, but more a "pre thought". TDD tries to make testing a pre thought...