
Clojure Inventor Rich Hickey Doesn't Know Types - yakshaving_jgt
https://jezenthomas.com/rich-hickey-doesnt-know-types/
======
manutter51
He's quoting Hickey out of context to try and make it look like Hickey is
either ignorant or dishonest about what a type spec like "a -> a" means. In
context, Hickey is using hyperbole to emphasize how little information is
actually conveyed by a type spec, and explain why he decided to leave types
out of Clojure. Thomas' rant is grossly unfair to Hickey, and does a great
disservice to the programming community, especially considering the
explorations Hickey is currently doing with regards to Clojure spec.

------
comma_at
Calling out fallacies while commiting more is, well, funny.

> Encoding invariants in a type system is far cheaper than writing tests.

You may need to back that claim up with something or you're going to be
anecdotal as well.

> Rejecting an entire field of study (like types!) is not only anti-
> intellectual, but also does nothing to move the state of our industry
> forward.

Who says type theory is needed to move our industry forward? Even if you think
that why would every language need to use it? This is slippery slope.

> I’d say that’s especially harmful now in a time where software errors can
> bring down a couple of Boeing 787 Max airplanes and kill hundreds of people.

Was the crash the result of a bug that a type system would have solved?
Otherwise this is quite the straw man too.

