Comment by lomnakkus
11 years ago
> types are way overrated.
Please show your scientifically rigiorous evidence. Because it appears very few other people have any (either way), so at the very least you could earn a prize if you shared yours! :)
11 years ago
> types are way overrated.
Please show your scientifically rigiorous evidence. Because it appears very few other people have any (either way), so at the very least you could earn a prize if you shared yours! :)
How about "A Large Scale Study of Programming Languages and Code Quality in Github" by Baishakhi, et al. [1]? That shows a weak correlation between fewer bugs and static typing. There's a stronger correlation between strong typing and fewer bugs.
[1] http://macbeth.cs.ucdavis.edu/lang_study.pdf
I am familiar with that study and while I have serious issues with the methodology, I do not think it says what you think it does[1].
[1] If you think it refutes my point, that is.
> Because it appears very few other people have any (either way)
If there is no evidence either way, yet every other developer raves about types all the time (the way "connaisseurs" rave about fine wine and expensive scotch despite being unable to objectively tell the difference), doesn't it follow that types are overrated?
Wow. Way to bias the discussion by segueing into to wine and/or whisky! We're not discussing neither wine nor whisky, so... maybe you'll dispense with the hyperbole?
What is your actual point and what is your evidence?
That's the point. Here is further discussion of this: http://blog.metaobject.com/2014/06/the-safyness-of-static-ty...