New blog post / newsletter -- the one about static typing that I've been fighting with:

buff.ly/3X7Ds4h

TL;DR:
* Static typing has value, but we overrate it because it so easy to see how it works in simple code
* In more complex code you need more powerful data validation anyway
* There's a cost to having to lock your code to types early

4
Share
Share on Mastodon
Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook
Share on Linkedin
Alessandro Fazzi

@noelrap thanks for this. It’s interesting, balanced and open minded. It’s a really polite take on a frequently poisoned topic. Looking forward to reading nexts.
My reply to the final answer: I’m more worried about renounce to duck typing. I’m more a fan of not typing interfaces and validating internal objects’ state. At least working with small teams (<10) on long lasting, always evolving, medium sized codebases.

0
3mo
Johan Halse

@noelrap best thing I’ve read on the entire internet about typing, I think

0
3mo
Christian Tietze

@noelrap I work in a statically typed language with strong generics support all day: Swift. I don't want to remove static types there, I learned how to work with this language.

But! When I reach for Ruby, I don't know if I really miss strong types :) I actually enjoy what Ruby offers. Or a Lisp.

It's interesting to read your take, because I believe that the Ruby-centric "ergonomics" you learned shine through the lines, like wanting to defer settling on 1 type early in the process of molding 👍

0
3mo
Replies