The Anti-Human Consequences of Static Typing
jeapostrophe.github.io
The Anti-Human Consequences of Static Typing
1–10 of 67 posts
Re: The Anti-Human Consequences of Static Typing
#2The first example of a "good" program contains an if statement that should only ever branch in one direction.
I question whether that is a "good" program.
Re: The Anti-Human Consequences of Static Typing
#3I don't think I've ever seen someone use such gleefully religious rhetoric to advocate dynamic types before.
Re: The Anti-Human Consequences of Static Typing
#4This is science. It must be true.
Re: The Anti-Human Consequences of Static Typing
#5[deleted]
Re: The Anti-Human Consequences of Static Typing
#6The first example of a "good" program contains an if statement that should only ever branch in one direction. I question whether that is a "good" program.
It's only good in that with the dual dichotomies he has defined as what the static typing compiler accepts and rejects and what will function or not function, it functions but may not compile.
Re: The Anti-Human Consequences of Static Typing
#7> In the final analysis, we may appeal to the Gödel Incompleteness Theorems and conclude that in every logic there are statements which are true, but not provable, or provable, but not true.
Is this wrong?
"true but not provable" is easy.
What is an example of a statement that is "provable but not true"?
Re: The Anti-Human Consequences of Static Typing
#8> Other more quaint languages like Java may have type systems that check properties such as "The program does not add numbers and strings"
Poor example. In Java, number + string means "convert the number to a decimal string then concatenate", and it can be invoked unintentionally.
Re: The Anti-Human Consequences of Static Typing
#9The first example of a "good" program contains an if statement that should only ever branch in one direction. I question whether that is a "good" program.
It's only good in that with the dual dichotomies he has defined as what the static typing compiler accepts and rejects and what will function or not function , it functions but may not compile .
But he's presenting it as a bad thing that the program doesn't compile. Static typing stopped the compile because the program does something foolish. That's a win.
Re: The Anti-Human Consequences of Static Typing
#10> In the final analysis, we may appeal to the Gödel Incompleteness Theorems and conclude that in every logic there are statements which are true, but not provable, or provable, but not true. Is this wrong? "true but not provable" is easy. What is an example of a statement that is "provable but not true"?
It's true. The theorems are a statement about the logics. Most of the time when you design a logic, you get to "choose" which case you'll get. Most people choose "true but not provable" because that's a little useful. It would be very bad to choose "provable but not true", because then you could never trust any conclusions of the proof system. - the author