Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Most of programming in dynamic typing should be implicitly statically typed. Know what you're passing. Obey the implicit (duck-typed) interfaces

Yeah, I thought that too. After years of persistently seeing stupid (sometimes critical) bugs due to assuming the correct thing was being passed, I concluded that 1. the only sane thing to do is add explicit precondition checks that raise meaningful exceptions when assumptions are broken, and make sure those paths are exercised by unit tests, and that 2. I would much rather have that done statically and automatically by a compiler.

> Basically, don't just check "if it's a list do that, if it's one element do something else, if it's a number do another thing" - this is a beginner's mistake (and I did those)

I think this may be a misunderstanding of what I meant by "precondition checks" - I meant explicitly checking the assumptions being made by a method, most of which are type checks (foo.kind_of?) or (more commonly) interface checks (foo.respond_to?).

> Though it's not so much static typing that sucks, it's its implementation in the Java/C++ way. Go and Rust make it better.

I don't have much problem with Java's implementation of static typing at all, and I don't think C++'s problem is its static typing implementation. I find Go's implementation a bit inflexible and hard to work with though.

Again, YMMV!

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact