Re:Complete Rewrite of ESLint
by __alexs on Monday November 28, 2022 @09:22AM
(#33773914)
I have written and shipped many Python bugs that did not pass the type checker but it was impossible to run the type checker because it would not be invented until many years later.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
If you had a type checker bug you didn't you manually test that code path at the bare minimum. Type check bugs are the most simplistic bugs to catch. Is it nice sure, but if you can't spot those before you ship I can almost guarantee that you have larger logic bugs that the types won't catch.
What isn't helpful is the the notion that types replace testing. Either manual testing or unit/functional/generative testing. It isn't "safer" at all, it does speed up development by catching the simple bugs so the run edit compile loop is less. If you're saying "my code compiles then it's works", I don't buy it.
> If you had a type checker bug you didn't you manually test that code path at the bare minimum.
I'm glad that you agree type checkers help avoid error prone and expensive manual testing work.
> What isn't helpful is the the notion that types replace testing.
Types are a type of testing. They are another tool in the toolbox for writing correct programs.