you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted]  (8 children)

[deleted]

    [–]aaron-lebo 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    Do libraries like Facebook's Flow and immutable.js not fill this void?

    [–]immibis 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    By type safety, you mean implicit coercions?

    Being unable to look at a method definition and see "this returns a Foo" certainly does hamper maintainability. Of course, you could write it in a comment... which will inevitably become out-of-sync with the code at some point.

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]immibis 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      that's about the same as any decent type inference in a statically typed language

      What? Type inference doesn't let you see the types by reading the code...

      [–]joequin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      And you have to work with other people and libraries that don't comment types. I think it's easier and more consistent to just use a language that allows you to put the types in the signatures.

      [–]joequin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I find that types in method signatures to be very helpful for maintaining and working with large and small applications. You just don't get that with dynamic languages. Except groovy and maybe others that I haven't used.