Learning Elm has gotten me confused about static vs. dynamic typing

Re:Learning Elm has gotten me confused about static vs. dyna... by pka on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @06:12PM (#11905747)

But, as you surely know, types prove something about a piece of code. This means they can very well prove the absence of (certain) bugs.

So generally, the more invariants you manage to capture in your types, the more categories of bugs you can statically prove will never happen.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Learning Elm has gotten me confused about static vs. dyna... by jw- on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @07:25PM (#11906181)

This is all true, but is it not a problem that most static languages don't let you (easily) specify the kind of invariants people include in unit-tests.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Learning Elm has gotten me confused about static vs. dyna... by acjohnson55 on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @07:56PM (#11906329)

Sure. But you write unit tests for those.

[ Parent | on HN ]