Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Things I Was Wrong About: Types

v5.chriskrycho.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 468 posts

Re: Things I Was Wrong About: Types

#341

Post by MiroF »

lolinder wrote: post #290
marktangotango wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with this 1000%. Projects (note not programs or individual source files!) are simply easier to grok (maintain, enhance, debug, refactor) with statically (and strongly) typed languages than dynamic IMO. Five years ago when switching jobs I’d pursue “full stack” positions because I’d done a fair amount of front end dev in the past. No more, me personally, I’m backend all the way. Dynamic typing (vanilla js) is…

It's not perfect, but TypeScript goes a long way toward making frontend feel as safe as backend. You still have the potential for weird bugs when interacting with external JavaScript, but your internal code is pretty safe. Also, TypeScript's type system is impressively flexible, and I often find myself missing features (like unions) when working with other languages.

> missing features (like unions) when working with other languages.

Which languages are missing unions? Off the top of my head, they exist in C/C++ and mypy python.

Re: Things I Was Wrong About: Types

#342

Post by throwaway894345 »

zabzonk wrote: post #312
throwaway894345 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

C++ has only recently acquired type inference, as have most of the others in the prior generation of statically typed languages.

Almost 10 years ago is "recently"?

Yes. The new crop of languages—Go, Rust, etc are about that old.

Re: Things I Was Wrong About: Types

#343

Post by didibus »

slifin wrote: post #241
temporallobe wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even though I learned C/C++ in school, I started off my career with a typeless language, Perl. I loved it for its simplicity and power to quickly spool up working code, but realized it was problematic to use for large projects for many of the same reasons you state. I then switched to a Java project and was immediately frustrated with types because of how verbose it was, but after a while I came to appreciate just ho…

In the Clojure world we use clj-kondo, maps, and spec to solve these problems We get editor time feedback of mistakes with optional type hints + light inferance via clj-kondo and a data modelling system that we can export out as database schema, JSON schema etc And dynamic enough constraint system to express something like all human names must be "Tony" only on Tuesdays The same constraint that can be shared server s…

Ya, that's why I think each language kind of benefit to different levels of having static type checkers and of various features as well. You can't just blanket say all type checkers are bad, or all language without one are bad.

Clojure is a good example here, it actually can be used with a very powerful static type checker core.typed, yet its users chose not too for reasons that say in JavaScript maybe a different choice would have been made. The REPL for example catches lots of type errors as you code. Other languages don't have such a coding workflow, so a static type checker feels really great in that it too will catch type errors as you code, etc.

Re: Things I Was Wrong About: Types

#344

Post by MiroF »

joelbluminator wrote: post #301
jerf wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think dynamic typing will ever swing back. They came out of an era when types were expensive and had moderate benefit. Now they are cheap (in modern languages) and have significant benefits. There will always be things like shell scripts and stuff, but I don't expect to ever see a big language without a good typing story ever again. The problem to solve now is to lower the costs more and raise the benefits, n…

> will ever swing back. Does it need to swing back? Python/JS/PHP/Ruby are still plenty popular. And no, JS isn't typescript.

JS is losing out to TS long term.

Python is getting Mypy.

PHP (and Ruby) are dying much more rapidly than many of their peers of similar ages.

Re: Things I Was Wrong About: Types

#345

Post by joelbluminator »

MiroF wrote: post #344
joelbluminator wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> will ever swing back. Does it need to swing back? Python/JS/PHP/Ruby are still plenty popular. And no, JS isn't typescript.

JS is losing out to TS long term. Python is getting Mypy. PHP (and Ruby) are dying much more rapidly than many of their peers of similar ages.

Php is dying? Didnt know.

Re: Things I Was Wrong About: Types

#346

Post by MiroF »

joelbluminator wrote: post #345
MiroF wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

JS is losing out to TS long term. Python is getting Mypy. PHP (and Ruby) are dying much more rapidly than many of their peers of similar ages.

Php is dying? Didnt know.

PHP is literally the only language banned in some major tech companies because of how dysfunctional it is.

Re: Things I Was Wrong About: Types

#347

Post by agumonkey »

rswail wrote: post #159

A lot of people are making comments about how they can code "faster" without types. But for the majority of the code we write, inital speed isn't that important. Understanding the code and maintaining it are orders of magnitude more important for any non-trivial code. Types are not only a way for the compiler to understand your code and impose constraints. They're also your API to other programmers. When they see a s…

Warning this is in 2008 context:

Types are cool but when I worked on eclipse apis (plugins) god forbid they were utterly useless. Design matter, having 32 intermediate classes to do just anything, 12 of which are totally unrelated and suddenly types don't help you much.

Also it was full of Option types disguised as potentially empty arrays.

I guess today things are better.

Re: Things I Was Wrong About: Types

#348

Post by cle »

cannabis_sam wrote: post #277
rswail wrote: post #159

A lot of people are making comments about how they can code "faster" without types. But for the majority of the code we write, inital speed isn't that important. Understanding the code and maintaining it are orders of magnitude more important for any non-trivial code. Types are not only a way for the compiler to understand your code and impose constraints. They're also your API to other programmers. When they see a s…

It’s honestly embarrassing to hear all the worthless arguments against types. The cognitive load of a dynamically typed (or unityped, or “untyped” or whatever) language is massive, yet the common argument is that types «increase» the cognitive load??? How does offloading a large majority of the trivial reasoning of a program over to a type system, ”INCREASE” the cognitive load??? It’s just so endlessly easier to prog…

There’s a continuum for sure. Type systems have their own kind of cognitive load, because you have to learn them, how to model your invariants in them, how to understand error messages, avoid common pitfalls, etc. Type systems are usually quite “general” and abstract, and that always comes with cognitive load. Quite often reading the code of a parametrically-polymorphic Python function is way easier than understanding the generalized polymorphism constructs of an advanced static type system.

There are times when the cognitive load of a particular static type system is less than that of a dynamic one, for certain classes of programs and audiences, and times when it’s not. This is fine and we should encourage development of both kinds of type systems and a shared understanding of how to pick the right ones for the job (which is a discussion nearly always missing in these debates).

Re: Things I Was Wrong About: Types

#349

Post by sgt101 »

I realized these lessons about types in the first semester of compsci at Uni - no one "taught me" but the curriculum meant that I learned this. It's great that people come to these insights on their own - but it's really clear that this is a very inefficient way of learning.

Re: Things I Was Wrong About: Types

#350

Post by didibus »

andrewflnr wrote: post #291
didibus wrote: post #278

I think a point not often brought up is that Java takes a stance against type inference. It argues that type inference can lead to bugs, because sometimes it doesn't infer the type you meant and makes code harder to read. So explicit types it is. Also inference slows down the compiler and similarly the auto-completion. Now, I'm in the camp where I don't really think static type checkers are all that great. I judge la…

Java's stance is flat wrong as a matter of practice. I don't believe I've once had the compiler infer a wrong type in a way that led to runtime bugs. If it did, we would all be rightfully annoyed with that compiler because it would be broken. Once more, for the back of the room: Java does not count as an example of a worthwhile type system. Good types do not increase verbosity.

I can see you disagree on a matter of principle and personal experience. And that's alright. I just think it's as valid an opinion as all the others. There are some who like explicitly defined types of various levels. Those who want it all infered or partially infered, and those who don't want them at all, or want them optional or gradual, etc.

And none has been able to make a claim over the others even now years later the debate still rage on. The data doesn't show up. And different people have different experience that leads them to different paths.

So I like to think of it more as a personal choice. Like various master chef all have their preferred brand and type of knife, so do developers with programming language and type checkers.

Post reply on HN