Re:Static typing will not save us from broken software
by spankalee on Sunday October 23, 2016 @02:22PM
(#12774680)
> the idea that static typing will solve all our problems, or even one specific problem: The ubiquity of broken software
Citation needed.
Most proponents of static typing, myself includes, have much more modest claims: that is saves time spent by developers on smaller, more mundane errors. That it makes refactoring easier. That it allows for better IDE support like autocompletion and hover-over documentation.
Even if these advantages are modest compared to fixing "broken software", they're still huge and worth the increasingly minor annoyances of modern static type systems, many times over.
Re:Static typing will not save us from broken software
by Veedrac on Sunday October 23, 2016 @04:06PM
(#12775175)
You can argue on "most" advocates, but not "certain" advocates. Since you asked for a citation, how about the famous "Not relying on type safety is unethical"?
Citation needed.
Most proponents of static typing, myself includes, have much more modest claims: that is saves time spent by developers on smaller, more mundane errors. That it makes refactoring easier. That it allows for better IDE support like autocompletion and hover-over documentation.
Even if these advantages are modest compared to fixing "broken software", they're still huge and worth the increasingly minor annoyances of modern static type systems, many times over.