[astrobe_]

I'll paraphrase someone who commented on HN once (about dynamic vs static typing, IIRC): permissive languages are enablers for solo programmers, but you need more restrictive languages for team programming.

This matches my experience because you don't chose who you work with. Skill level is uneven among the team. Less skilled co-workers will make mistakes that will have more consequences when the language is more permissive.

That's one of the reasons you want code reviews, but then you convert your skilled programmers to teachers. This is not a good trade, because the time they spend improving the skills of other programmers is partially wasted because programmers are free to come and go. AI could change this picture.

The name of the game is therefore to keep your teams small and skilled, but this is can be difficult because of typical company politics - e.g. "bus factor" considerations, shortening time-to-market is often achieved by adding more programmers.

[xedrac]

> Less skilled co-workers will make mistakes that will have more consequences when the language is more permissive.

Even the most skilled engineers are going to make these mistakes sometimes. That's the whole point of more restrictive tooling, and why Rust has exploded.

Don't get me wrong. I love Lisp, and use it in some personal projects. But I wouldn't want to use it in must not fail scenarios unless those situations can wait for a human to fix the running image.

[astrobe_]

Yes. I'm moving the goal post a bit here, but I was actually thinking about design mistakes and dangerous constructs - the kind of thing you do when you write in a "hacky" way - either deliberately or because you don't know better. Although these are not directly under the scope of type checking, a more restrictive language can have a positive influence.

[plumbees]

If the more skilled programmers become managers, then it's theoretically their job to become teachers, as their goal is to be force multipliers as opposed to people who can't delegate and accept a lower quality (temporarily) in exchange for higher throughput later.

[GMoromisato]

I agree with you. Though I wonder if the divide is more about the size of the program. I've got a couple of large (>100K LoC) solo projects and I like using C++ because it is much easier to catch bugs at compile time.

Static typing is a huge advantage in refactoring, and if you don't refactor a large program as it grows, you end up with a mess.

[drob518]

Clojure programmer here. Refactoring is the only time I miss static typing.

[oalae5niMiel7qu]

>This matches my experience because you don't chose who you work with.

That's what job interviews are supposed to be for. It should be easy to hire only the most skilled programmers, especially with the massive number of unemployed programmers out there right now.

[AlotOfReading]

Programming skill is similar to driving skill. You can hire the best people in the world and there'll still be incidents. The people who are most skilled may even be more incident-prone because they have the skills to take more risks.

Don't bet the company on no one ever making a mistake. Set up a system where the unintentional risks are minimized and the consequences of inevitable failures are mitigated by seatbelts and insurance policies.

[oalae5niMiel7qu]

Seat belts are one thing, a car with a top speed of 35 mph is something else entirely.

[3form]

Maybe it's trivial what I'm saying, but hiring the most skilled available person does not solve the skill disparity.

[dosisking]

Just look for the people who like Rust and filter them out

[Arubis]

I know this is obvious trolling, but it’s close to a truth. Selecting for a passion for languages that aren’t anyone’s first language gets you polyglots—folks that’ve had to abstract their knowledge and understand what’s an ecosystem feature vs what’s more broadly applicable.

Joking about Rust users rhymes with joking about vegans; it’s true both parties generally can’t keep from talking about their choice. But you do want to hire someone who’s thought about their options and made a decision.