Hacker News Reader

> I think statically typed languages go too far in the other direction. Tyr type and API definitions are too strict leading in a ton of unnecessary effort (ie boilerplate), increased surface area for potential bugs, and overly restrictive limits that require 'creative' workarounds to effectively write code.

Given this description of statically typed languages, I'm guessing you haven't tried OCaml or Haskell.

View on HN

Whilst I've found Hindley-Milner systems much nicer to use than, e.g. Java, they can still require boilerplate and "creative" workaround which wouldn't be necessary in dynamically typed languages.

For example, I've recently been struggling with a Haskell library that makes heavy use of `TypeRep` values, which is fine when everything's done in a single process invocation, but very awkward when attempting to serialise/deserialise (e.g. to pass data between processes, or to suspend a computation and resume it later)

I was specifically referring to statically typed OOP.

You're right, I haven't tried OCaml or Haskell so I can't make a qualitative judgement on how easy/hard type coercion is in either.

The need for type coercion is a very good indicator of a bad design. Haskell just forces you to deal with it right now instead of never.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com