Hacker Read

rat87 · 2016-03-09 09:20:29

plus static type checking

tel | karma 10892 | avg karma 2.75 · | 2013-07-07 21:23:11+00:00

Wait, the type checking isn't static?

aisofteng | karma 588 | avg karma 1.25 · | 2017-07-20 12:55:11

But it also has a statically checked type system.

Sammi | karma 1364 | avg karma 1.86 · | 2015-03-05 19:33:51+00:00

Some people really like static type checking.

dagmx | karma 11637 | avg karma 4.02 · | 2021-02-12 17:10:32

Actual static typing and forced type checking.

weberc2 | karma 4751 | avg karma 1.26 · | 2020-01-14 00:43:48

Oof, that’s quite a take. Static type checkers by definition don’t change the language’s functionality; they merely check the types.

DenisM | karma 12146 | avg karma 2.48 · | 2009-12-14 15:15:16

But we also covered a lot more than a static type check could cover at compile time, right?

Kiro | karma 10888 | avg karma 1.51 · | 2018-10-27 10:35:06+00:00

How does that work? I thought static typing was only checked when compiling.

iainmerrick | karma 5858 | avg karma 2.53 · | 2022-10-09 11:10:45

Yeah, I think this is something where static typechecking helps a lot.

revskill | karma 2173 | avg karma 0.97 · | 2023-01-04 02:09:48

What's status of static typing checking ?

selestify | karma 1217 | avg karma 1.52 · | 2015-08-07 00:24:45

Right, but I'm curious to know among statically typed languages, which ones have more checks than others.

empath75 | karma 15699 | avg karma 2.9 · | 2019-03-24 11:58:56+00:00

Type checking as an add-on is okay but it is not the same thing as a statically typed language.

lacampbell | karma 2206 | avg karma 1.89 · | 2019-09-19 02:56:52+00:00

Statically typed

islon | karma 921 | avg karma 3.05 · | 2013-07-12 11:26:13

In a statically typed language you have to worry about many other things tough =)

flackjap | karma 2 | avg karma 0.67 · | 2015-08-30 11:54:40

With compile time checking that is already there + Dialyzer, you basically have the whole 'code correctness' side of static typing? Right?

dustingetz | karma 7361 | avg karma 2.44 · | 2011-08-03 08:28:26

static type checking is like compile-time asserts -- it doesn't add to solution complexity, it just verifies assumptions about inherent existing complexity.

paulddraper | karma 16686 | avg karma 1.72 · | 2023-06-09 15:16:10

Static types

ReflectedImage | karma 318 | avg karma 0.68 · | 2023-02-01 18:44:40

Yeah but typing related bugs which is what static type checkers catch only account for 3% of bugs.

You are always going to get more bang for buck by simply writing more unit tests.

Static typing is done primarily for performance and that requires a statically typed language. Hacking it into a scripting language is plain looking for trouble.

reply

ReflectedImage | karma 318 | avg karma 0.68 · | 2022-11-29 14:22:39

Static typing on its own is very bad at finding errors.

Static typing is something you use for performance reasons primarily.

If you want to catch errors with static typing you need Haskell or Rust levels of support for it. C# / Java / C++ don't make the grade.

reply

nautilus12 | karma 508 | avg karma 0.91 · | 2017-06-27 11:50:17+00:00

Seems like youve just abstracted things like static typing into a extension of the language thats checked at a less optimal time. At this point arent you better off just using a language that incorporates this functionality and compiles it? Sounds like youve just implemented static typing but in a really akward and unecessary way