News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Diminishing returns of static typing. Parent comment

Re:Diminishing returns of static typing by 201709User on Monday October 02, 2017 @01:28PM (#15385871)
Yes, why do something automatically when you can do manual work!
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Diminishing returns of static typing by icebraining on Monday October 02, 2017 @01:32PM (#15385915)
I think the idea is that you have to write tests anyway.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Diminishing returns of static typing by whyever on Monday October 02, 2017 @01:40PM (#15385992)
No, you don't have to write tests for invariants enforced by the type system.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Diminishing returns of static typing by ubernostrum on Monday October 02, 2017 @02:05PM (#15386254)
I think the bigger idea is that people who've never actually written serious code in a dynamically-typed language assume that people who do always write a bunch of extra unit tests to assert correct types, assert behavior on incorrect types, etc. etc., and that programs crashing due to type errors is a super frequent occurrence.

None of those things are true.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Diminishing returns of static typing by tome on Monday October 02, 2017 @05:01PM (#15387919)
And yet there are dynamic language proponents in this very subthread suggesting that's exactly what everyone should do.
[ Parent | on HN ]