In a conference 15 years ago I heard a guy say The problem with software is we don't know what it is. He meant that: we know what is a car or a bridge, we know why and how they do their purpose, not so much with software, which is a strange beast our minds are not ready to grab yet.
Static Typing is not enough
11–20 of 65 posts
Re: Static Typing is not enough
#12Yes, static typing is not enough. Which is why a good statically typed language like Haskell also has great testing facilities. So you don't just write well typed code, but you also write unit tests (HUnit) and property-based tests (QuickCheck). The really neat bit is that static typing actually makes writing tests easier--QuickCheck is much easier to use in Haskell than it would be in some dynamically typed language.
Re: Static Typing is not enough
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
(any of the other stuff mentioned) .. ensure correctness The post says that. Dot-completion in your IDE is not enough either, nor is it something particularly unique to static languages.
> The post says that. I think the grandparent knew that, and was just repeating what you said to contrast it with his following statement about what static typing is good for. And dot-completion is not completely unique to static languages, but I would say it is “particularly unique” – it is more common for static languages. And that’s not just coincidence – it is generally easier to write a tool like dot-completion…
> dot-completion involves static analysis of the code.
Dot-completion involves having a living model of the program loaded in memory. You can do this with any language--static languages just partition the program model such that you get a certain phase of interpretation (compilation) past which you have a completed model of all of the code, without yet having seen any of the data.
On the other hand, you can easily dot-complete method calls in a dynamic language's REPL--because there, at runtime, is when and where a dynamic language forms a complete model of the program it can use to do such things.
Now, the real question is why we're still programming dynamic languages in text-editors instead of treating them as congealments of transactionally-replayable interactive REPL transcripts. (Are there any modern examples of programming in this style, anyway? I can only think of ancient ones: Emacs Lisp, Squeak Smalltalk, and the "immediate-command-line" of some Telnet-based simulated-world MOOs.)
Re: Static Typing is not enough
#14Neither static typing (nor any of the other stuff mentioned) is enough to ensure correctness. Never has been, never will be. However, static typing is enough for some sweet, sweet hit-dot-wtf-can-i-do-completion-refactoring-like-a-boss tooling goodness.
(any of the other stuff mentioned) .. ensure correctness The post says that. Dot-completion in your IDE is not enough either, nor is it something particularly unique to static languages.
Reliable dot completion without some batshit insane state-dependent VM-as-a-dev-env-or-constantly-running-tests system is... well, let's just say made much easier with static typing.
I really could give a shit about what people think is "enough" (IMO, keeping stuff simple, as in simplicity of implementation, as in worse-is-better, is the only answer) I just want to hit dot and have a pretty good idea what I'm allowed to do. And static typing, in practice, appears to help there.
But hey, man, I'm not advocating you use it.
Re: Static Typing is not enough
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The post says that. I think the grandparent knew that, and was just repeating what you said to contrast it with his following statement about what static typing is good for. And dot-completion is not completely unique to static languages, but I would say it is “particularly unique” – it is more common for static languages. And that’s not just coincidence – it is generally easier to write a tool like dot-completion…
> dot-completion involves static analysis of the code. Dot-completion involves having a living model of the program loaded in memory . You can do this with any language--static languages just partition the program model such that you get a certain phase of interpretation (compilation) past which you have a completed model of all of the code , without yet having seen any of the data . On the other hand, you can easily…
I code in both ruby (with a repl in the IDE) and java (with a traditional statically typed IDE). There are times I wish I had a repl in java (I typically use debugging in a test to fake it) but I'd give my left cortex for reliable code completion in ruby.
There's no reason we can't have both. It just takes a reasonable terse statically typed language like C# or, dare I say... gosu.
Re: Static Typing is not enough
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
(any of the other stuff mentioned) .. ensure correctness The post says that. Dot-completion in your IDE is not enough either, nor is it something particularly unique to static languages.
Reliable dot completion without some batshit insane state-dependent VM-as-a-dev-env-or-constantly-running-tests system is... well, let's just say made much easier with static typing. I really could give a shit about what people think is "enough" (IMO, keeping stuff simple, as in simplicity of implementation, as in worse-is-better, is the only answer) I just want to hit dot and have a pretty good idea what I'm allowed…
But hey, man, I'm not advocating you use it.
Re: Static Typing is not enough
#17Big take away: Love Driven Development Rules Them All.
Re: Static Typing is not enough
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
(any of the other stuff mentioned) .. ensure correctness The post says that. Dot-completion in your IDE is not enough either, nor is it something particularly unique to static languages.
Reliable dot completion without some batshit insane state-dependent VM-as-a-dev-env-or-constantly-running-tests system is... well, let's just say made much easier with static typing. I really could give a shit about what people think is "enough" (IMO, keeping stuff simple, as in simplicity of implementation, as in worse-is-better, is the only answer) I just want to hit dot and have a pretty good idea what I'm allowed…
Pry for ruby gives me great dot completion and isn't batshit insane. Most diehard dynamic typists live in their repl. When I use java with IntelliJ I miss my repl. I do gain some things from the IDE, but I feel hamstrung compared to my repl.
Re: Static Typing is not enough
#19[deleted]
Re: Static Typing is not enough
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
> dot-completion involves static analysis of the code. Dot-completion involves having a living model of the program loaded in memory . You can do this with any language--static languages just partition the program model such that you get a certain phase of interpretation (compilation) past which you have a completed model of all of the code , without yet having seen any of the data . On the other hand, you can easily…
I code in both ruby (with a repl in the IDE) and java (with a traditional statically typed IDE). There are times I wish I had a repl in java (I typically use debugging in a test to fake it) but I'd give my left cortex for reliable code completion in ruby. There's no reason we can't have both. It just takes a reasonable terse statically typed language like C# or, dare I say... gosu.
Have you tried pry for ruby?