[taeric]

What did I make an equivalence between? Large codebases are hard, period. That is all I am saying. Having worked on 100k LOC systems in static and in dynamic, I will not claim either has a benefit. That is just hard.

Static analysis is, of course, good. If that is static typing or otherwise. So is running the code making sure it does what you want when running.

What is not a huge help, is a byzantine type hierarchy that nobody understands. Which is all too familiar to me from any codebase I have worked on with folks that dived straight into the type system before they knew what they were doing in the system.

Many strong type proponents have moved to the categories view. If you know the category type of what you are doing, the idea is that that will prevent bugs. But... that hasn't been my experience. Often it just hides what is actually happening behind another layer of jargon. Jargon that is not native to the problem being solved.

[rwalle]

"I will not claim either has benefit"

I bet that if you did a survey of developers who have worked on projects of this scale, 90% would disagree with your opinion.

[taeric]

Then do said survey? Find empirical evidence and share it.

My experience, sadly, is the louder a dev on the team is about either dynamic or static typing, the more likely that dev's code is something nobody else in the team wants to work with.

[random314]

Here is one sample point for your survey.

Static is better than dynamic for large projects, in my experience.

[taeric]

You should have more than one point of data. How many software systems? How old were they? How many contributors? How many bugs in each? Were any of them green field?

[random314]

Dude, you have already made up your mind, so I am not going to do any homework for you that you yourself aren't performing. You are not my boss, or anyone's boss here

[taeric]

Amusingly, you don't know my actual stance. Which is probably closer to pro static types than to dynamic.

My criticisms in this thread is that the static type brigade does not hinge on evidence. It is typically hollow claims and getting angry at dynamic languages for being obviously bad for lack of helping.

[super_flanker]

+1

[rendaw]

The equivalence you're making is that dynamically-typed large code bases are just as difficult to get into as statically-typed large code bases.

[taeric]

This implies that "difficulty" is a totally ordered set. Which... I find highly unlikely. Things can be very difficult in amazingly unique ways.

[scrollaway]

Large codebases tend to be harder than smaller ones within one language. But language to language, static typing is such a significant help that it makes a large difference.

I’ve been writing in python for 18 years, and yet I can far more quickly get into a large typescript codebase than a python one of equivalent size.

[taeric]

Amusingly, I hate python.

Static typing is a tool I like. I don't think we have evidence that it is an obvious win. And I've bounced off of several typescript code bases hard. To the point that I currently hate typescript. Despite being impressed with some of its capabilities.

Which is again to say ymmv. Bad code is bad with or without static types.