Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dllthomas 1161 days ago
While I'm pretty solidly in the "pro-typing" camp, it seems worth acknowledging that such projects often turn into dumpster fires in typed languages as well, even expressively typed languages.
2 comments

Maybe, maybe not - but in my experience, a dumpster fire with static types is easier to read and understand and also easier to refactor.
That matches my experience as well. I just think we need to be resistant to reading too much into "I've seen bad code that X", because that can easily be true of almost any X.
You think that statically typed languages don’t often turn into dumpster fires? Not my experience! Even though there are real advantages.
Sure, but they don't turn into dumpster fires because of the types, as untyped projects tend to do
I don't know that that's true. When the types in a program are designed in a way that's sufficiently out of sync with what a program needs to do, you can get a lot of mess working around them.

Can we say that's misuse of the tools? Sure. Is it less likely than things becoming a mess without types? Probably? Even more so as the tools improve and as the people involved know better how to use them.