Hacker News Reader

Comment by EduardoBautista | Hacker News Reader

I disagree. It is much easier to make big changes, especially refactors, using a language such as TypeScript. The amount of `undefined method 'example_method' on NilClass` errors in Ruby on Rails projects is astounding. After working with a typed language on the backend, I am confident it is easier to more quickly ship correct code with a typed language, while Ruby on Rails makes it easier to quickly ship incorrect code.

View on HN

If you don't have static typing, you just need to make sure you have good test coverage. I work in ruby/rails and don't run into this problem.

Sounds like a lot of extra work.

Static typing requires good test coverage too.

Tests confirm correct results. The fact that they also confirm expected types is a free side effect.

I'll work pretty much everywhere with any tech in any domain but never on something significant without tests. You spend all your time putting out fires. It sucks the life out of you.

You might want to check out Sorbet by Stripe if you want that with Ruby. https://sorbet.org/

When I had to work on Java/Javascript, I had to fallback to using `any` so often, to get the compilers to work, I gave up on the idea that strong typing is useful. Maybe it's fine for simple types, but trying to pass non-trivial structures around was way more trouble than it was worth.

> I had to work on Java

...

> I had to fallback to using `any

What? Are you sure you worked with Java?

Are you sure of what you're asking? Yes, the Java side was fine. I frequently had to use "any" on the Javascript side because it couldn't understand my compound types. They parsed fine in code, but the compiler would choke.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com