Comment by simon_o | Hacker News Reader

Comment by simon_o | Hacker News Reader

The biggest issue with claims like "there are only diminishing results when using a type system better than the one provided in my blub language" is that it assumes people keep writing the same style of code, regardless of the assurances a better type system gives you.

"I don't see the benefit of typed languages if I keep writing code as if it was PHP/JavaScript/Go" ... OF COURSE YOU DON'T!

This is missing most of the benefits, because the main benefits of a better type system isn't realized by writing the same code, the benefits are realized by writing code that leverages the new possibilities.

Another benefit of static typing is that it applies to other peoples' code and libraries, not only your own.

Being able to look at the signatures and bring certain about what some function _can't_ do is a benefit that untyped languages lack.

I think the failure of "optional" typing in Clojure is a very educational example in this regard.

The failure of newer languages to retrofit nullabillity information onto Java is another one.

The article makes two main points: a) static typing has a cost and b) thus, any benefit it brings should be examined against that cost.

I am sorry, but I don't really see how you stating more benefits of static typing really counters either of them.

I recommend reading the article again. But this time, try not to read it as defending a specific language (I only mentioned my blub language so that it's a more specific and extensive reference in the cases where I use it - if you are not using my blub language, you should really just ignore everything I write about it specifically) and more as trying to talk on a meta-level about how we discuss these things. Because your comment is an excellent example of how not to do it and the kind of argument that prompted me to this writeup in the first place.

Those are not really 'points', though; they are far too trivial. Obviously, nothing counters them, because they are tautologies that could just as well apply to any subject.

The point is to explore a comparative difference in value, and that is realized through mastery of the tool, not merely living in a world where it exists.

> they are far too trivial.

You'd have thunk I didn't have to make them than. But I did, judging from literally every argument I had about this.

> This is missing most of the benefits, because the main benefits of a better type system isn't realized by writing the same code, the benefits are realized by writing code that leverages the new possibilities.

The inverse is also true; you don't really get the benefits of dynamic typing until you start doing things differently to take advantage of that difference. If you still code like you're in a static language, you'll miss the benefits of a dynamic one.

Optional typing has not failed in Clojure, it's growing with clojure spec

Reply on news.ycombinator.com