• @NiftyBeaks@vlemmy.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    31 year ago

    These two arguments contradict each other and together are an argument for static typing, not against. Which just shows how weak these arguments are.

    The way I read it, he wasn’t suggesting that was a good argument at all. He was just explaining what he believes dynamic type enthusiasts say.

    This bit I am not convinced by. Inferring the API of a function from its body makes it harder to see breaking changes when you refactor the body. It can be useful for internal private helpers, but IMO public APIs should be explicit about their signature.

    Well, in F# at least, this inference is the default. However, anybody can still fully type out the function signature. I think I get what you are saying, but in the case of a public API or interfaces the programmer can simply just add the type specifications.

    I would go one step further here. It should support OOP and procedural paradigms as well.

    Yea I somewhat agree with this. Though I mostly abhor OOP, it taken in small doses can be good. And procedural programming is always invaluable of course.

    • @nous@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      The way I read it, he wasn’t suggesting that was a good argument at all. He was just explaining what he believes dynamic type enthusiasts say.

      Oh I read it the same way. I was just pointing out how much those two arguments contradict each other and that alone is almost enough of an argument without the extra ones the author gave. Though at the same time they are a bit of a straw man.

      Well, in F# at least, this inference is the default. However, anybody can still fully type out the function signature. I think I get what you are saying, but in the case of a public API or interfaces the programmer can simply just add the type specifications.

      But the problem with this being the default is most people wont go through the extra steps involved when they dont need to - which means you cannot really benefit from it most of the time. And the author implies that inferred types from bodies are always (or almost) the better option - which I disagree with.

      Though I mostly abhor OOP, it taken in small doses can be good

      Do you though? Or do you abhor inheritance. There are a lot of good ideas from OOP style code if you ignore inheritance (which was not originally part of the definition of OOP, in fact the original definition was very similar to some traits of function styles). It was only in later years and more modern times that OOP and inheritance was intertwined and IMO as a style it still has a lot to offer if you drop that one anti-feature.