> If you struggle with "speaking types" then that's an indication that you don't understand the domain of values your code works with.
I'm not sure I agree. I've met intelligent programmers who can elucidate the domain of values which their code is utilizing, but simply cannot do so in the framework of a given type system. Or perhaps they just find it difficult or painful to conform their description to the grammar of the type system. Understanding the data domain and being able to describe it in a specific type system are different skills.
Even if one is completely in favor of static types, it's important to be sympathetic to this point of view so that we can design better, more friendly type systems going forward.
There are definitely some failings in static type systems that can cause programmers to struggle, regardless of how well they understand their domain of values.
I guess I was thinking more of people I've talked to who advocate for dynamic type systems for rapid prototyping, because they don't want to be bothered to stop and think about their types first — they kind of just go with an approximate view of their data held in their head. I think this style of programming leads to a lack of understanding of the domain of values down the road, which is more what I meant to address. But I did not sufficiently explain this in my previous comment haha.
> I guess I was thinking more of people I've talked to who advocate for dynamic type systems for rapid prototyping, because they don't want to be bothered to stop and think about their types first
Totally! I wish we taught more type directed programming in general. It's a good way of thinking and can guide your process very nicely.
I've slowly come to the conclusion that instead of assuming my friend who doesn't like static type systems is misguided, I should try to figure out what aspects of static type systems need improvement so that a person like him would use them. Even if I don't agree with him, I can still use his point of view as a different perspective.
> I've slowly come to the conclusion that instead of assuming my friend who doesn't like static type systems is misguided, I should try to figure out what aspects of static type systems need improvement so that a person like him would use them. Even if I don't agree with him, I can still use his point of view as a different perspective.
Ah yeah, that's a very pragmatic view on things! And totally reasonable. I intend to work on improving type systems, so this is definitely the mindset I strive to maintain more often than not haha.
I'm not sure I agree. I've met intelligent programmers who can elucidate the domain of values which their code is utilizing, but simply cannot do so in the framework of a given type system. Or perhaps they just find it difficult or painful to conform their description to the grammar of the type system. Understanding the data domain and being able to describe it in a specific type system are different skills.
Even if one is completely in favor of static types, it's important to be sympathetic to this point of view so that we can design better, more friendly type systems going forward.