Static Typing is not enough • Hacker News Board

Re: Static Typing is not enough

#61

Post by marknutter » Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 1:27 PM UTC

tikhonj wrote: post #49

marknutter wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but perhaps we it means we can stop bitching about each other's bullets of choice and get back to shooting.

That would be great if I could just work by myself, happily use Haskell and not worry about bosses mandating something really annoying like Python or Java. In fact, that's one of the main reasons I'm working at a tiny startup right now. But I digress; my main point is simple: since chances are your choice of bullet affects others' choices, especially in corporate settings, it would be much better if it were a good ch…

And "good choice" remains subjective. Round and round we go. Somebody stop this thing before I puke.

Re: Static Typing is not enough

#62

Post by marknutter » Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 1:28 PM UTC

cageface wrote: post #41

marknutter wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but perhaps we it means we can stop bitching about each other's bullets of choice and get back to shooting.

I've got no time for bitching but I think serious attempts to study the pros and cons of different approaches are both welcome and needed in our profession.

I'm indifferent, frankly. I think it's valuable to know the pros and cons of different approaches, but most of the time discussion around degrades into unproductive flame wars. It's understandable, though. Dedicating years to becoming good at one approach over another will make you defensive.

Re: Static Typing is not enough

#63

Post by jdeseno » Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 2:44 PM UTC

fogus wrote: post #29

modarts wrote: post #10

Yet another attempt to diminish the value of statically typed languages and the benefits that go along with them.

I'm question if you read the post because I didn't diminish anything. I did say that it is a tool in the fight of software validation however.

It seems to be a trend; gloss over the article then infer most of the meaning from the title.

The title I submitted isn't great but, I can't seem to correct it.

Re: Static Typing is not enough

#64

Post by tikhonj » Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 7:54 PM UTC

marknutter wrote: post #61

tikhonj wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be great if I could just work by myself, happily use Haskell and not worry about bosses mandating something really annoying like Python or Java. In fact, that's one of the main reasons I'm working at a tiny startup right now. But I digress; my main point is simple: since chances are your choice of bullet affects others' choices, especially in corporate settings, it would be much better if it were a good ch…

And "good choice" remains subjective. Round and round we go. Somebody stop this thing before I puke.

Well yes. But my point is not that you should use technology X but that just letting you "get back to shooting" could very well be detrimental. In this particular point I'm not defending any particular technology but rather having discussions and disagreements about technologies. After all, you do not program in a vacuum.

Re: Static Typing is not enough

#65

Post by tikhonj » Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 7:56 PM UTC

Dn_Ab wrote: post #26

tikhonj wrote: post #12

Yes, 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…

QuickCheck is great and can be found in many languages - dynamic and static alike - nowadays. Another tool that is currently unique to Haskell and is easier to write tests for is Lazy/SmallCheck. SmallCheck shines in the left long tail of failure. Its core idea is based on a powerful principle: "If a program does not fail in any simple case, it hardly ever fails in any case." [] So SmallCheck works exhaustively to fi…

Quickcheck exists in a bunch of different languages, but Haskell's type system makes it easier to use and implement because it can rely on type information to figure out which generator to use for any given input.