News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Diminishing returns of static typing. Parent comment

Re:Diminishing returns of static typing by kazinator on Tuesday October 03, 2017 @11:29PM (#15398089)
C++ RTTI is only for class objects, and only useful when they are manipulated by pointer or reference. I believe I covered that sort of thing with my statement, "Some static languages support OOP, and so stuff some minimal type info into objects for dispatch.". It's a gadget which provides an alternative to the structure of doing everything via virtual functions on a base class reference.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Diminishing returns of static typing by lomnakkus on Friday October 06, 2017 @04:03PM (#15419943)
Ok, fair enough, but what about e.g. "-defer-type-errors" for GHC?

I still think you're just arguing semantics.

EDIT: Incidentally, the statically typed crowd can even go the "other way", namely from runtime -> compile time. For example, it's quite possible to derive a static proof/type from a runtime value in e.g. Idris by pattern matching as long as you're meticulous about building up the proof.

[ Parent | on HN ]