|
|
|
|
|
|
by pavel_lishin
2221 days ago
|
|
|
> Analogies are a great way to explain things, but not so much a great way to prove things. What are we proponents of static types being asked to prove? > But in the vast majority of modern software, it mostly just matters that you catch and fix bugs quickly--whether you catch those bugs at compile time or runtime is usually not as critical. I would argue that catching bugs at compile time, before you ship them, is vastly preferable to catching them at run time. |
|
|
Your arguments for why you think static types are better.
> I would argue that catching bugs at compile time, before you ship them, is vastly preferable to catching them at run time.
I would argue that you're only doing the benefit part of a cost-benefit analysis, which isn't very useful.