31–40 of 80 posts
This is the reason I prefer strongly typed languages. Allowing developers to play fast and loose with data types only leads to less maintainability down the road and makes code difficult to read.
Moreover, despite being a strongly-ish typed language, C++ has pretty ridiculous implicit conversion semantics, only statically rather than dynamically.
This is the reason I prefer strongly typed languages. Allowing developers to play fast and loose with data types only leads to less maintainability down the road and makes code difficult to read.
I have been in the industry for 16 years and have some pretty big code bases, in a variety of languages, under my belt (not trying to brag just setting the back-story). In thinking back, I cannot recall a single instance where any member of my team was bitten by an accidental conversion or a type safety issue. I have been fortunate to work with some good people, but some of them where average in their ability to actu…
Most people are not trained to notice these kinds of problems, or the simple checks that can stop them from confusing a list of lists and a list of lists of lists. But if you take a step back and think hard about what's happening to your time, you'll find that many hours are sunk chasing problems that are, in many ways, simple. Having static checks is like always having someone to read code over your shoulder.
This is the reason I prefer strongly typed languages. Allowing developers to play fast and loose with data types only leads to less maintainability down the road and makes code difficult to read.
there's a time in the place for everything. static/dynamic typing is a trade off between short-term development pace and long term maintenance. strong/weak typing is a trade off between enforcing high-level constraints and, well, i'm not exactly sure, but (void*) is used all the time in baremetal C . ... that said, i've never read an opinion that weak-typing to the extent possible in javascript is a great idea.
This is the reason I prefer strongly typed languages. Allowing developers to play fast and loose with data types only leads to less maintainability down the road and makes code difficult to read.
A bad craftsman always blames their tools.
You may say that users don't need to see to see strange error messages they don't understand. Quite right, what we need instead is to have a way for browsers to transmit uncaught exceptions in JS to the server.
This is the reason I prefer strongly typed languages. Allowing developers to play fast and loose with data types only leads to less maintainability down the road and makes code difficult to read.
This is the reason I prefer strongly typed languages. Allowing developers to play fast and loose with data types only leads to less maintainability down the road and makes code difficult to read.
This sort of thing really bothers me with Javascript. Using the unary + operator on an array should be an error. Hiding errors by having implicit type convertions doesn't help me fix those errors. You may say that users don't need to see to see strange error messages they don't understand. Quite right, what we need instead is to have a way for browsers to transmit uncaught exceptions in JS to the server.