[sammnaser]

> The bottom line: There are only two absolutely guaranteed ways to build bug-free, resilient, maintainable software. Two. And they are not static vs. dynamic typing. Two ways. Thing is - we humans have yet to discover either of those two.

That's true but some languages don't let you ship code to prod that multiplies files by 9, or that subtracts squids from apricots

[cess11]

Elixir won't allow you to do that:

   iex(2)> "/home/cess11" * 9
   ** (ArithmeticError) bad argument in arithmetic expression: "/home/cess11" * 9
       :erlang.*("/home/cess11", 9)
       iex:2: (file)

Documentation is full of type information:

https://hexdocs.pm/elixir/Enum.html#types

[self]

I think their point is that Elixir lets you write

    defmodule Multiply do
      def m9(m1), do: m1 * 9
    end

    # elsewhere...
    defmodule Caller do
      def doit() do
        Multiply.m9(2)
        Multiply.m9("hi")
      end
    end

It won't raise an exception or give you a warning while compiling it (tested with 1.18.4). Even adding

    @spec m9(integer()) :: integer()

above its definition doesn't do anything.

[iLemming]

> that multiplies files by 9, or that subtracts squids from apricots

I don't understand why when someone mentions the word "dynamic", programmers automatically think javascript, php, bash or awk. Some dynamically typed PLs have advanced type systems. Please stop fetishizing over one-time 'uncaught NPE in production' PTSD and acting as if refusing to use a statically typed PL means we're all gonna die.

[sczi]

A funny thing is I once had a type bug while coding elixir, that bash or perl would've prevented, but rust or haskell wouldn't have caught. I forgot to convert some strings to numbers and sorted them, so they were wrongly sorted by string order rather than numerical order.

In haskell (typeclasses), rust (traits), and elixir comparison is polymorphic so code you write intending to work on numbers will run but give a wrong output when passed strings. In perl and bash < is just numeric comparison, you need to use a different operator to compare strings.

In the case of comparison elixir is more polymorphic than even python and ruby, as at least in those languages if you do 3 < "a" you get a runtime error, but in general elixir is less polymorphic, ie + just works on numbers, not also on strings and lists and Dates and other objects like python or js.

I also experienced more type errors in clojure compared to common lisp, as clojure code is much more generic by default. Of course noone would want to code in rust without traits, obviously there are tradeoffs here, as you're one of the minority in this thread recognizing. There is one axis where the more bugs a type system can catch the less expressive and generic code can be. Then another axis where advanced type systems with stuff like GADT can type check some expressive code, but at the cost of increasing complexity. You can spend a lot more time trying to understand a codebase doing advanced typesystem stuff than it would take to just fix the occasional runtime error without it.

A lot of people in this thread are promoting gleam as if its strictly better than elixir because statically typed, when that just means they chose a different set of tradeoffs. Gleam can never have a web framework like Phoenix and Ash in elixir, as they've rejected metaprogramming and even traits/typeclasses.

[sammnaser]

That comment was specifically engendered by Python trauma

[kstrauser]

Not directly, it wasn’t:

  >>> open('foo') * 3
  Traceback (most recent call last):
    File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
  TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for *: '_io.TextIOWrapper' and 'int'

You have to go to some length to get Python to mix types so badly.

[Orygin]

Won't prevent you from shipping this in prod. The stack trace you shown only appearing when you execute the code.

[kstrauser]

Or run mypy etc., because you care about your code.

[cess11]

Tests will, however.

[Orygin]

Sure but that's not what we were talking about. Plus I don't need to add tests like this in my code for it to be valid once compiled

[iLemming]

> specifically engendered by Python trauma

Well, yes, Python can sure feel pretty fucking awkward from both perspectives. It started as fully dynamic, then added type hints, but that's not the main problem with it, in my opinion, the problem that you're still passing around opaque objects, not transparent data.

Compare it with Clojure (and to certain extent Elixir as well). From their view, static typing often feels like wearing a suit of armor to do yoga - it protects against the wrong things while making the important movements harder.

- Most bugs aren't type errors - they're logic errors

- Data is just data - maps, vectors, sets - not opaque objects

- You can literally see your data structure: {:name "Alice" :age 30}

- The interesting constraints (like "end-date > start-date") are semantic, not structural and most static type systems excel at structural checking but struggle with semantic rules - e.g., "Is this user authorized to perform this action?" is nearly impossible to verify with static type systems.

What static types typically struggle with:

- Business rules and invariants

- Relationships between values

- Runtime-dependent constraints

- The actual "correctness" that matters

Static type systems end up creating complex type hierarchies to model what Clojure does with simple predicates. You need dependent types or refinement types to express what clojure.spec handles naturally.

Elixir also uses transparent data structures - maps, tuples, lists, and structs are just maps. It has powerful pattern matching machinery over type hierarchies - you match on shape, not class. Elixir thinks in terms of messages between processes and type safety matters less when processes are isolated.

Python's type hints do help with IDE support and catching basic errors, yet, they don't help with the semantic constraints that matter. They add ceremony without data transparency. You still need runtime validation for real invariants.

So Python gets some static analysis benefits but never gains a truly powerful type system like Haskell's, while also never getting "it's just data" simplicity. So yes, in that sense, Python kinda gets "meh" from both camps.

[ruszki]

Average coders die with anything a little bit more complex. Adding an additional, unnecessary layer of problems won’t help with that to say the least.

[iLemming]

I'm not sure what you're saying, but just in case if you're implying that choosing to use something like Clojure or Elixir adds "unnecessary layer of problems" just because they are not statically typed, let me remind you that "simplicity" is basically Clojure's middle-name. Rich Hickey made a seminal talk on simplicity, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxdOUGdseq4 it's quite eye-opening and isn't really about Clojure. Every programmer should watch it, perhaps even multiple times throughout different stages of their career progression.

[ruszki]

I don’t imply anything. I state (pun very much intended).

I cannot consider seriously anybody who thinks that programmer convenience and maintainability are different things on any level. And focusing on one doesn’t need the other.

Also this speech is academic blabla. I understand it, but there is a reason why he had to build a completely new vocabulary… because it’s not simple and easy at all. And there is a reason why there is exactly zero examples in almost the whole speech.

Because I can give you a very, very good example to contradict the whole speech: NAND gate.

Also you can code in Haskell basically with the same logic as in imperative languages (I used Clojure rarely, so I cannot say the same). So the “simplicity” is there only if you want to. But that’s true also the other way around: you can have the same “simplicity” in languages where mutability is the default. I agree that you should do immutability by default, but it’s stupid to enforce it. And he said the same thing, just it was a half sentence, because it contradicts everything what he preached: there are cases when his simplicity toolkit is the worse option.

Ruthless immutability causes less readable and maintainable code in many cases. And I state it, and I can give you an example right away (not like Hickey did): constructing complex data.

Also every time when somebody comes up with ORM and how bad it is, I just realize that they are bad coders. Yes, a lot of people don’t know how to use them. But just because it allows you to do bad things, doesn’t mean that it’s bad. You can say the same thing about everything after all. Every high level languages are slower than code in Assembly. Does that mean that every high level languages are OMG, and we should avoid them? Obviously not. You need to know when to touch lower layers directly. This is especially funny because there is a thread about that part on Reddit, because he used some vocabulary which is basically non existent, and the thread is a clear example of that people don’t even know what’s the problem with it. It’s a common knowledge that it’s bad, and they don’t know even why. For example, whoever fuck up a query through ORM, would fuck up the same way just with different syntax, like with a loop, because they clearly don’t know databases, and they definitely don’t even heard about normal forms.

And yes I state it again, using flexible type systems add unnecessary layer of problems. I also like that he mentioned Haskell, because it makes it clear, that his speech is completely orthogonal to the discussion here.

[iLemming]

You seem to be making several interconnected points, but your writing style is making it somewhat difficult to follow.

It looks like you're mischaracterizing Hickey's talk. The distinction between "simple" (not intertwined) and "easy" (familiar) isn't "academic blabla' - it's fundamental to building maintainable systems.

Your NAND gate example actually supports his point: we build higher-level abstractions precisely because working at the lowest level isn't always optimal. That's what Clojure's immutable data structures do - they provide efficient abstractions over mutation.

As for "constructing complex data" being harder with immutability - have you ever heard about Clojure's transients or update-in, lenses or Specter? They make complex data manipulation both readable and efficient.

The ORM critique isn't about "bad coders" - it's about impedance mismatch between relational and object models. Even expert users hit fundamental limitations that require workarounds.

Calling dynamic typing an "unnecessary layer of problems" at this point is pretty much just your opinion, as it is clear that you have one-sided experience that contradicts everything I said. The choice between static and dynamic typing involves real tradeoffs; there isn't a clear winner for every situation, domain, team, and project, you can "state" whatever you want, but that's just fundamental truth.

[ruszki]

It’s academic blabla, because as I stated it created a new vocabulary for no good reason. You can say the same thing without introducing it. You can say those things even better with examples.

I told you that I don’t know clojure, I know Haskell, which was also topic of Hickey’s presentation. I also know builder pattern… But looking into it:

> Clojure data structures use mutation every time you call, e.g. assoc, creating one or more arrays and mutating them, before returning them for immutable use thereafter.

So the solution is mutability… when Hickey preached about immutability. And basically builder pattern. A pattern which is in almost every programming language, most of the times a single line. So… immutability is not the best option every time, just as I stated, and it causes worse code. We agree.

You hit limitations with everything. ORM is not different regarding that. When I write s.isEmpty() in a condition in Java, I had to use a workaround… very painful. And yes, I state that if you think an entity is a simple class, then you are a bad coder, and if you cannot jump this “complexity”, you will never be a not bad coder. Same with sockets, ports, and pins.

Your last paragraph is totally worthless. You can say the same thing about everything.

I simply don’t preach. And I also wouldn’t say such things without considered an expert in ORM for example. I also wouldn’t say anything about which I don’t have first hand experience.

And as I stated, no matter what’s your tooling, bad coders will make bad code. On the other hand, you don’t need restrictive tooling to make good code. So what’s my problem is that, you don’t need Clojure or Haskell. It’s good to see something like that in your life, the reasoning etc, but it’s pointless to say, that you must be “simple”, when we can see that that is simply not true. Not even in Clojure according to Clojure.