> That article just documents that the safety benefits of static typing are, empirically, rather minuscule, especially compared to the claims for the benefits, which are vastly overblown.
Right, which is why I said that you fundamentally misunderstand type theory.
Even if I accept what you write that I misunderstand type theory...you do understand the difference between theory and practice, right? And that I didn't write about type theory, but about empirical effects that are independent of the theory.
Let me explain it to you: if I claim that I have a new car that goes 200mph, and you measure the speed and it only does 20mph max, then it really isn't relevant whether you understand the theory behind your engine or not, it's simply not as fast as claimed.
Or do you mean that anyone who doesn't accept claims about benefits at face value "doesn't understand". That sounds more like a religion than anything having to do with science and engineering. Which is, sadly, my experience with this particular cult.
Of the article that you find "laughable": show me the research that actually validates the claim of significant safety benefits and we can talk.
Which typed languages have you tried? In which have you written anything bigger?
> Of the article that you find "laughable": show me the research that actually validates the claim of significant safety benefits and we can talk.
I'm yet to see one good research paper that looked into the field that was worthwhile. This sort of thing is extremely hard to measure across different people. I speak from my experience and from what others have told me.
You still don't seem to understand this this is completely irrelevant to the point I am making. You don't have to be able to build an engine with my magic engine technology to be able to measure the speed of the car and see whether it goes as fast as I claim.
However, since you asked so nicely:
- Our algorithms class at university was taught with statically typed FPs. Mostly Hope, some Miranda IIRC. (We were the last generation of students to be spared the institute's own Opal). Haskell didn't exist yet.
- I also took the advanced FP courses.
- And am a great fan of FP. Backus's FP, to disambiguate
- It became quickly clear that FPs were no panacea, they just had different problems than other languages
- We also quickly surmised that this whole FP thing was a religious cult and that you were required to take all the claims that were made on faith
- Also used Pascal and Modula
- Did a major system in Java, probably one of my best pieces of work to that date[1]
- Also remember that Objective-C acquired static typing during my time with it (before that it was all "id"). I was hugely confident (kind of like you now) beforehand that this would be a major boost to my programs' correctness and my productivity, and I was very surprised when that turned out not to be the case
But again, all this is largely irrelevant to the point I am making.
> I speak from my experience and from what others have told me.
Really?! Not only do you ignore the evidence there is, you also, of course, have absolutely none yourself. And with that nothing, you make claims that anyone who disagrees with your personal opinion (backed by anecdote) is a complete idiot.
Well, at least I don't have to revise my 1989 opinion (based on the evidence at the time) that this is a cult. Boy is it ever a cult.
Right, which is why I said that you fundamentally misunderstand type theory.
> https://labs.ig.com/static-typing-promise
This article is laughable. There is like billion confounding factors.