News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Busting the 10x software engineer myth. Parent comment

Re:Busting the 10x software engineer myth by widdershins on Wednesday September 22, 2021 @08:33AM (#28615565)
To be fair, the grandparent said 'runtime errors', not 'bugs'. And it is a stated goal of the Elm language that runtime exceptions thrown from the compiled Javascript should be impossible. As far as I know, they have succeeded in that goal.

How this relates to 10x or not I don't know - I'm not sure the discussion is a productive one without further context.

It might be that for some tasks, Elm really does provide a huge benefit in productivity. In that case, it's probably fair to call a developer that selects and uses the tool correctly a 10x developer - provided they are able to evolve the culture of their company so that others can take advantage of it.

For other tasks, or in other contexts, Elm might be a hinderance. If it's lacking an indispensable library, or if the company culture is not ready to accept it as a core language, it won't help anyone to rewrite in Elm.

As always, one of the key things that makes a good (even 10x) developer is the ability to select the right tool, and to wield it gracefully.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Busting the 10x software engineer myth by goto11 on Wednesday September 22, 2021 @09:20AM (#28615963)
I'm sure Elm is a great language, but thinking it eliminates runtime errors is ridiculous. Of course it might eliminate exceptions, but exceptions are not errors, rather they are (sometimes) signals than an error have happened.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Busting the 10x software engineer myth by cies on Wednesday September 22, 2021 @03:18PM (#28620529)
Yes, this only holds for some definition of errors. Run time program errors due to type mismatch, nulls and exceptions are non-existant.

Pretty cool!

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Busting the 10x software engineer myth by goto11 on Thursday September 23, 2021 @03:44AM (#28626330)
The question is, why was these run time error not caught by unit tests? Probably because there wasn't any tests - which means the code likely have numerous logical errors. Static typing is great, but it will not prevent against logical errors. So without testing you will have bugs in any language you rewrite in.
[ Parent | on HN ]