|
|
|
|
|
by ReflectedImage
1245 days ago
|
|
I don't actually care about any of that stuff. You are confusing technically wrong with not working. If the code works in production it doesn't matter that the code is technically wrong. Testing via typing is very weak testing. Almost worthless. Type checking doesn't find many bugs in general. Strongly typed languages have 2.5 times the number of bugs as dynamically typed languages per software feature. Why would you intentationally add bugs to your code? It doesn't make any sense to me. Thinking using static typing in a scripting language is a good idea is pretty naive. It's like creating a version of Haskell with mutability. |
|
This is actually very insightful, but I'm afraid you won't be able to convince most people.
The only valid metric of code correctness is empirical: how many times code ran successfully in production. Everything else (unit tests, static typing) is theoretical and often close to useless.
I remember seeing a talk where someone analyzed all Github repos to find which languages produced most reliable software. He found C++ to be the most reliable. But not because C++ itself is great as a language. The main reason was that lots of the dependencies that other languages are using were written in C++. C++ software happened to be the most battle tested.