News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Dynamic type systems are not inherently more open. Parent comment

Re:Dynamic type systems are not inherently more open by toastal on Sunday January 19, 2020 @07:56AM (#22091194)
And on layer 10 you missed that you were using and treating the argument as if it were the double. Now you have a bug that the type system would have solved. Or you can alias that input early if you know with a good certainty it has possiblity to change, and now you just update the alias and everything gets checked all the way down without a refractor.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Dynamic type systems are not inherently more open by k__ on Sunday January 19, 2020 @08:04AM (#22091225)
AFAIK, the problem here isn't "bad static typing" but "bad type inference"

If you only have to write the type once at the top of the 10 layer, you don't have to do much to change it.

[ Parent | on HN ]