News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Experiment: Unit testing isn't enough; You need static types, too . Parent comment

Re:Experiment: Unit testing isn't enough; You need static ty... by simias on Wednesday June 20, 2012 @12:13PM (#4137632)
I just read the first part of your comment as "no true programmer would need no filthy static type checking". Sorry if I misunderstood.

I find it hard to correlate use of static typing with development experience, that's all.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Experiment: Unit testing isn't enough; You need static ty... by debacle on Wednesday June 20, 2012 @12:30PM (#4137716)
If you are a good programmer, you don't need typing, you don't need interfaces, you don't need many things that make bad programmers better programmers.

You might still use them, and there's nothing entirely wrong with that, but you probably don't need them.

This is why so many people have problems writing JavaScript.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Experiment: Unit testing isn't enough; You need static ty... by dllthomas on Wednesday June 20, 2012 @02:13PM (#4138292)
Even if you're a good programmer, typing and interfaces make refactoring quicker and typos easier to find.

This is why so many people have problems writing in JavaScript.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Experiment: Unit testing isn't enough; You need static ty... by debacle on Wednesday June 20, 2012 @02:45PM (#4138478)
Typing makes refactoring quicker only if you're relying on it. If you're not, then it will actually make refactoring slower.

Interfaces will not make refactoring faster, just easier.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Experiment: Unit testing isn't enough; You need static ty... by dllthomas on Wednesday June 20, 2012 @04:34PM (#4138965)
> Typing makes refactoring quicker only if you're relying on it.

As opposed to?

[ Parent | on HN ]