What do I think about Lua after shipping a project with 60k lines of code?

Post by greenavocado » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 5:49 PM UTC

packetlost wrote: post #78

mabster wrote: post #5

With dynamically typed languages I feel it's better to wait until you've tried to maintain the code for a while before you consider the languages effectiveness. I had to maintain a very large Lua codebase that has been active for several years. One big problem with Lua was how it will happily take more or less parameters to functions and continue to execute compared to something like Python where it is an error to pa…

One of my coworkers described Python (specifically in reference to a niche framework, but I think it applies generally) as "a bucket of play-doh filled with broken glass"

Post by stinkbutt » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 6:06 PM UTC

shermantanktop wrote: post #79

pnathan wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I had to work in a larger Python codebase after spending a few years with Go and Rust and the drop in logical confidence around the language was remarkable. I have, roughly, sworn off dynamic languages at this point. Although I have dreams of implementing a firm typed system over Common Lisp.

Same, though my trauma was Ruby. Those Rubyists who were apparently born with the language spec in their heads can do amazing things, but I am a mere mortal who needs to be told I wrote bad code right when I wrote it, not told at 2am on a production server.

Post by esafak » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 6:18 PM UTC

alternatex wrote: post #100

jlarocco wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but I don't agree that static typing is a replacement for unit tests. I can see static languages having fewer unit tests, but it's not going to eliminate them.

Static typing is a replacement for unit tests aimed to catch type bugs. Also, no one has 100% code coverage so might as we get some guarantees for granted. I understand that statically typed code doesn't mean bug-less code, but I always find it odd that dynamic language enthusiasts feel like they need to stretch the benefits. Dynamic languages are great for many things. Strictness is not one of them and that's fine.

Post by mkehrt » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 6:30 PM UTC

jlarocco wrote: post #84

aomix wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw someone describe python as “stressful” for this reason and I couldn’t agree more. It’s difficult to have confidence in any change I make or review. I need to sit down and manually exercise codepaths because I don’t get the guarantees I crave from the language or tooling. While with the small amount of Rust code I’ve written lately I could yolo changes into production with no stress.

> I need to sit down and manually exercise codepaths Isn't that exactly what unit tests are for?

Post by debugnik » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 7:36 PM UTC

nine_k wrote: post #96

debugnik wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and very much rejects ill-typed programs No it doesn't. Even on the strictest settings, Typescript is unsound in trivial ways, which I hit every time I use it in anger (e.g. undefined in unassigned variables). And Microsoft libraries seem perfectly ok with asserting their type errors away without any validation, specially for JSON values. I had a similar experience with Python until I found Pydantic. I haven't had…

This is sadly so; TS's type system is unsound. But so is C#'s, in ways much more egregious that in TS. Despite that, both languages are very usable in practice, and their static checks prevent a very wide range of problems common in languages without a static type system. If you need bulletproof soundness and JS as the runtime, you have Purescript %)