[debaserab2]

I actually don't relate to this statement at all. My college courses were filled with Python, Java, and C#. I loved python. I hated C# and Java even more. I learned PHP in my own free time. I then went on and happily cut my teeth on dynamic languages for the next decade.

I dabbled occasionally with typed languages, but it wasn't until Typescript was forced upon me by a respected coworker that I was able to recognize type safety as a net-win for development speed. Seeing an entire class of problems disappear in a codebase rife with them was an eye opening experience.

I briefly took a ruby job a little over a year ago and I missed type safety quickly. Despite how much I love Ruby, I love tracing through code paths to understand what a variable is a lot less.

[mosselman]

In which way don’t you agree with the statement then?

[abhaga]

That programmers don't change their opinion about types. He did.

[mosselman]

But dhh didn’t say that. He said that very few programmers, not all, don’t like having their opinions changed in typing. He didn’t say they don’t like it when it happens on their own, they don’t like it when others try to do it. At least that what dhh says. Not saying I agree.

You can’t just read something, change it’s meaning and then argue against it.

[debaserab2]

How did I change it's meaning?

DHH said:

> very few programmers are typically interested in having their opinion on typing changed. Most programmers find themselves drawn strongly to typing or not quite early in their career, and then spend the rest of it rationalizing The Correct Choice to themselves and others.

IME, my story doesn't seem to be that unique among typescript advocates thus I do not relate to DHH's statement.

[mosselman]

You’re right I am sorry.

[etler]

I think typescript's type inference and structural typing is a big part of how it doesn't get in the way of writing code. I've always preferred the safety of static language, but understood the productivity benefits of dynamic languages. With typescript I feel I get the best of both worlds, as you only need to add types where they're vague, and structural types let you express more in objects without needing heavier class polymorphism all over the place.