|
|
|
|
|
|
by mixmastamyk
855 days ago
|
|
|
I’ve rescued two very large Python projects bordering on disaster, and have improved many more. In both cases the main problems were architecture-related, they were written at the wrong level of abstraction, then in the wrong language. Those need to be fixed first if you value your time. Typing errors were not a top-ten concern: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39161025 I.e. there are bugs, there are always bugs. But are they important bugs? Is the question.
When faced with a house of cards, do you fix the nails, or start with a new foundation? Also you don’t write tests just for types. You write tests to validate functionality as you would anyway. And they will find type errors on failure. Black/white adolescent appeals to the one-true-way are not compelling and why you did not convince, then or now. Typing is simply another useful tool in the toolbox, and I never said it should be avoided—my statements were qualified. |
|
|
You're looking at a bridge made of wet cardboard and saying you shouldn't use FEA when designing bridges because the real problems are the fact that it's made of cardboard and it's wet.
> Also you don’t write tests just for types.
Not just. But you do have to write those tests as well if you don't use static typing. I have seen them written. Static typing reduces the number of tests you need to write. This is very very very well known.
> Black/white adolescent appeals to the one-true-way are not compelling and why you did not convince, then or now.
No, it's because you view static types as an admission that you might make mistakes and you don't want to admit that to yourself. You literally equated making typing mistakes with punching yourself in the face.