←back to thread

Type checking is a symptom, not a solution

(programmingsimplicity.substack.com)
67 points mpweiher | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.202s | source
Show context
jameshart ◴[] No.45142572[source]
All programmers need to try assembly programming just once.

Just a program counter, a stack, a flat addressable block of memory, and some registers.

You’ll very quickly learn how hard it is to program when you have complete responsibility for making sure that the state of the system is exactly as expected before a routine is called, and that it’s restored on return.

Every language tool we’ve built on top of that is to help programmers keep track of what data they stored where, what state things should be in before particular bits of code are run, and making it harder to make dumb mistakes like running some code that will only work on data of one sort on data of a totally different structure.

Of course types are a solution. You just have no idea what the problem was.

replies(7): >>45142961 #>>45143148 #>>45143298 #>>45143430 #>>45143718 #>>45145214 #>>45145436 #
1. mbb70 ◴[] No.45145436[source]
I implemented a casino in assembly for college. Started with a Mersenne Twister and added a few pure chance games like roulette and slots.

The PRNG was trivial. Managing the user's bank balance, switching between games, making the roulette wheel 'spin' by printing a loop of numbers slower and slower was painstaking, error ladden work.

State doesn't just contributing to complexity, it is complexity.