|
|
|
|
|
|
by unethical_ban
3004 days ago
|
|
|
>The point of type-checking is that the function needs to work on a duck, then there is no point to ever pass it anything except a duck. If I know I'm only going to pass ducks, and the software is quick and dirty and non-critical enough that it doesn't matter if I accidentally pass it a goose, then I don't want to have a general contractor standing next to me developing saying "make sure that's a duck!" |
|
|
There is no situation that is so "quick and dirty and non-critical" that you would want an invalid function invocation that could never, ever possibly succeed.
Again, if you just want a dummy call while you're refactoring so that things compile, pass in nulls in those parameters. But there is literally no reason to ever pass totally invalid but real data to a function.
I'm literally at a loss for any situation where you would ever pass an apple to a function that expects a duck, and think that's not just a valid construct, but a positive one that a language should encourage. It just boggles the mind how stupid that is.
Guess people just hate nulls that much, even as a parameter to a dummy stub, that they're willing to give away type safety.
If you really, really, really want to do a construct like that in a typed language, you can always just do "myFunc((Duck) myApple)" to pass the apple as an instance of type Duck, but if a duck is not an apple then that's guaranteed to fail at runtime, just like in the dynamically typed language (because dynamic typing is not magic).