Strong typing, a hill I'm willing to die on

Re:Strong typing, a hill I'm willing to die on by marcosdumay on Wednesday October 04, 2023 @10:46AM (#37765953)

Testing is a bandaid that only pretends to show that your code is correct.

Static verification (what includes static types) is the real deal.

That said, WTF is there with people insisting that types must be either static or dynamic, and that dynamic types are useless?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Strong typing, a hill I'm willing to die on by pfdietz on Wednesday October 04, 2023 @12:22PM (#37767458)

Static typing, as done in mainstream languages, doesn't show your program is correct. Is you compiler written in a mainstream language correct just because it compiles? Of course not. Don't point to academic curiosities with dependent types if they aren't actually used. Extensive testing, on the other hand, is used in the "real world" for assurance.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Strong typing, a hill I'm willing to die on by yakshaving_jgt on Wednesday October 04, 2023 @03:34PM (#37770413)

This is the classic "Uncle Bob" style false dichotomy.

Whoever said you can only pick one of the two approaches?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Strong typing, a hill I'm willing to die on by marcosdumay on Wednesday October 04, 2023 @05:18PM (#37771944)

Every code out there on the real world is full of baindaids and duct tape. Yet, the actual amount varies a lot, as does the centrality of the patched things.

[ Parent | on HN ]