Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by klardotsh 877 days ago
So not only did you pull the original comment's assertions out of your _bag of holding_ but rather than citing sources when asked, you doubled down on "well if you know you know" and claim that the (often relatively small) increases to line lengths of type-annotated programs somehow magically increases the number of bugs, again with no evidence.

If you're not going to bring bold numbers to support bold claims, why should any of us bother listening?

1 comments

There is nothing bold about the claims, knowing the differences between the various typing systems and their advantages and disadvantages is standard stuff.

I mean you could always try to find some sources to try and prove me wrong if you want?

I don't have a dog in your fight regarding the original point you made related to the number of bugs increasing but the logic in your comment is flawed though.

"I mean you could always try to find some sources to try and prove me wrong if you want? "

That's not really how it works though. If you make a claim, either you back-it up or it's irrelevant.

Case and point: I believe that a flying tea pot created the universe. By your logic I am right and it should be up to you to prove me wrong.

So to conclude this argument, if you are correct, you should prove it as the person who responded to you asked you to do.

Failing that,your comment goes back to being nothing more than your opinion instead of a fact.

We assume in good faith that statements made in comments on social media are true. If this was an academic paper, then perhaps you would be correct. But on social meda, asking for sources for what is basically common programming knowledge is borderline trolling.

If s/he thinks that what I'm saying is wrong so strongly then they can go back that up with something. They will obviously fail terribly because I'm correct but that is their choice.

I've thought that adding the type information is to help less bugs, so I'd be curious to see evidence of the contrary.

I use python add my day job, and I hate writing and dealing with typing. I do admit it makes it easier to reason about other people's code though, especially when faced with libraries that don't have any hints.

People get this weird idea in their heads that if they do more stuff than what they have done is better in some way. In practice however simpler code usually wins out.

Docstrings are usually a lot better than type hints for that purpose.

I have no idea why anyone would assume assertions made in social media comments are true.

I could write "Humans have actually always had blue skin and hair, but due to a cosmic ray warping our ocular nervous response systems 1000 years ago, we now see humans the way we see them today". And I'd damn well hope someone would ask me to back this absurdity up with evidence.

... and thus: "lalalala I can't hear youuuuuuuuu over the sound of being right!" doesn't make for a good look, is basically what I'm telling you, and asking you to please either cite some sources, or stop doubling down on having to be right because you said so. This is such a ridiculous exchange I'd swear I was having it as an elementary school teacher.