Comment by shevy-java
1 month ago
I agree somewhat, but I'd rather call it their brain adjustment than a religion though.
I think about 99% of people who suggest to slap down types onto dynamic languages have already been using types since decades, or many years, in another language. Now they switch to a new language and want to have types because their brain is used to.
Nah. 99.9% of the people who wanted the addition of DryStructs to a codebase I worked on wanted it because they'd been bit, repeatedly, by someone sending one kind of object into a function rather than what the function accepted and it just not getting caught.
A robust type system allows you to make "compiler errors" out of runtime errors. One of these takes *way more tests to catch* than the other. I'll let you guess which.
Nah that's just a lack of understanding in the role of unit tests in dynamically typed languages.
Elsewhere in this thread, dynamic typing advocates malign the hassle of maintaining types, and it is always coupled with strong advocacy for an entire class of unit tests I don't have to write in statically typed languages.
5 replies →