[d357r0y3r]

> My last job was in C#, and it seemed like so many things were stringly typed, entirely nullable, or used something else to weaken the type system.

This sounds like C# as written by people that don't really know or like C#. If you're stuffing everything into strings or a dynamic, you missed the point of the type system in a very serious way.

> In addition to this failure to use the type systems, testing is becoming a much more rich environment. I think popular resources on effective testing are much better and numerous than popular resources on effective typing. There are great books and tools around helping developers test their software more thoroughly and efficiently. Comparing these testing resources with typing resources, the closest popular book I can think of for typing is Design Patterns, and I don't think most popular type systems are built with the program correctness as a top priority.

There is some overlap between problems that can solved by type systems and test suites, but there are many problems that can only be caught by one or the other.

It also strikes me as strange that people can't be bothered to use the type system provided by the language, but they can be bothered to maintain and add unit tests for their programs. Correctness enforced by types is fused with the code; if you get the types right, you should be all set. There's no additional maintenance beyond making sure that the code compiles.

[natec425]

> This sounds like C# as written by people that don't really know or like C#. If you're stuffing everything into strings or a dynamic, you missed the point of the type system in a very serious way.

I agree, but I think it is the reality. Software development is a job, not divine appointment. And assuming it is reality, I think the best short term gain those developers isn't doubling down on type systems.

> It also strikes me as strange that people can't be bothered to use the type system provided by the language, but they can be bothered to maintain and add unit tests for their programs. Correctness enforced by types is fused with the code; if you get the types right, you should be all set. There's no additional maintenance beyond making sure that the code compiles.

I'm totally with you. I remember a friend being so impressed when a hypothesis test caught a bug in an example that I set up. The funny thing was that I made the example from a function over an F# Union. A lot of people seem to get super irritated by compiler errors but seem to be really impressed by clever testing. I think it has to do with the error messages. Property based testing frameworks tend to show you the simplest concrete example of your error. Type checkers tend to show you the most abstract example of your error. Maybe if type checkers started to to incorporate more concrete examples of error, people would generally find them more appealing.

[rntz]

> Property based testing frameworks tend to show you the simplest concrete example of your error. Type checkers tend to show you the most abstract example of your error. Maybe if type checkers started to to incorporate more concrete examples of error, people would generally find them more appealing.

I think this is a really important insight! And in fact, there is some recent research about making type checkers produce counterexamples: http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/5355. Ergonomics of type systems is an unfortunately understudied area.

[cle]

There is a real cost to properly modeling your domain in the type system. You have to conform with the constraints of the type system, there is higher cognitive overhead, it can cost more up-front (which can cause missed deadlines), etc.

Also, there are cases where using strings is more appropriate than using enums. Where passing a blob is preferred over guaranteeing the correctness of the blob's structure. Where "null" really is better than an Option type.

And conversely, there are companies who hire crappy developers or don't give their good developers enough time to learn the idioms and best practices of their tools.

[KMag]

"Dynamic Witnesses for Static Type Errors* ("or ill-typed programs usually go wrong)"[0] by Eric Seidel et. al. discusses a prototype for a system that searches for concrete examples of ill-typed inputs that break a program, in order to aid novice programmers with type errors at compile time.

[0]http://eric.seidel.io/pub/nanomaly-icfp16.pdf

[dllthomas]

That is really cool! When will it be in GHC? :D

[dllthomas]

> there is higher cognitive overhead

In my experience, the opposite is the case. If I can offload some checks to my tooling, I don't have to be constantly performing them mentally. And with type inference at a repl, I can ask about the shape of things that can't possibly run yet (though I don't think I get that with C#).

[wereHamster]

> Where "null" really is better than an Option type.

WAT? Give me an example.

[cle]

performance

[tome]

There's no reason it shouldn't be a typed null though. It doesn't have to be a tagged Option type.

[cle]

I'm talking about practical reasons to use null.

Theoretically it's not necessary, but given real-life constraints, there are most definitely times when null is more appropriate than e.g. Java's Optional.

[tome]

I agree! I'm just saying there's no theoretical reason for null not to be typed (which is quite different from Optional).

[premium-concern]

That's an extremely weak argument. Java's Optional is broken and should never be used.