Type checking is done statically without running the program. You don't need to execute any run-time logic to perform a check like this. What you are suggesting is a much, much weaker form of verification that doesn't require any type system at all.
My most charitable interpretation of the perceived misunderstanding is that the intent was to frame developers as "the user."
This project would be the developer tool used to produce interactive tools for end users.
More practically, it just redefines the developer's position; the developer and end-user are both "users". So the developer doesn't need to think AND the user doesn't need to think.
I interpreted it like "why don't we simply eat the orphans"? It kind of works but it's absurd, so it's funny. I didn't think about it too hard though, because I'm on a computer.
Lol, software development at a modern startup isn't even in the upper half of applied intelligence in software engineering much less global human activity/achievement. The "problems" most startups are solving are simple to the point of banality.
Is there any way to start banning posts like this if they don't actually link the codebase? There's no point at all in engaging with something like this without a way to judge the real outcomes that have/have not been achieved.
reply