683
In case you forgot.
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
683 points (91.8% liked)
Programmer Humor
32495 readers
473 users here now
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
- No NSFW content.
- Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I started as a python enjoyer. 6 years later I can confidently say fuck dynamic typing, fuck mutable defaults.
Also fuck python and js (used both for work) TS is better but we all know it's not by much
TS is “better” but often I feel like just configuring typescript takes up a significant amount of the time you save by using it.
It gets easier the more you do it but ts needed a default official config to start things up with.
Hahaha exactly! I feel like every time I start a new TS project, I start by copying the tsconfig from an existing one
This. I actually have template which I'm using for all my small projects.
Yeah, i feel the same but it is at least configurable and not terrible configurable like python
Right tool for the job.
If I just quickly want to whip up a small script, I actually want to save a few seconds.
When I'm doing something larger in scope, static typing all the way.
IDK buddy, I don’t really care to write the same method for five different types (or read the 30 methods with different type signatures) when I can do it with one. I see the exact opposite of your statement, in my experience.
That's what generics are for.
So… dynamic typing with extra steps 😂
Extra steps that guarantee you don't accidentally treat an integer as if it were a string or an array and get a runtime exception.
With generics, the compiler can prove that the thing you're passing to that function is actually something the function can use.
Really what you're doing if you're honest, is doing the compiler's work: hmm inside this function I access this field on this parameter. Can I pass an argument of such and such type here? Lemme check if it has that field. Forgot to check? Or were mistaken? Runtime error! If you're lucky, you caught it before production.
Not to mention that types communicate intent. It's no fun trying to figure out how to use a library that has bad/missing documentation. But it's a hell of a lot easier if you don't need to guess what type of arguments its functions can handle.
Type signatures help you to know what a function takes and returns. With dynamic typing, I have to read the entire code of the function just to know this (sometimes even this doesn't tell me what will actually be returned due to duck typing).
More importantly, type signatures help the compiler verify the types.
Both of these get more and more important as the code size increases. I'd suggest you widen your horizon about static typing.
bro has never heard of an lsp