• Windex007@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    You should read the article, because it’s pretty much a direct rebuttal with justifications to this exact argument. You’ve really just re-stated what the article disputes.

    Which isn’t to say you’re wrong, I’d just be interested in your response to the arguments.

    • snowe@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      My response to the article is that you’re sacrificing gains in language because some people use outdated tools. Code has more context than what is just written. Many times you can’t see things in the code unless you dig in, for example responses from a database or key value store, or literally any external api. Type inference in languages that have bad IDE support leads to a bad experience, hence the author’s views on ocaml. But in a language like Kotlin it’s absolutely wonderful. If needed you can provide context, but otherwise the types are always there, you can view them easily if you’re using a decent IDE, and type inference makes the code much more readable in the long run. I would say that a majority of the time, you do not care about the types in any application. You care about the data flow, so having a type system that protects you from mismatched types is much more important that requiring types to be specified.

      • Windex007@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Maybe I’m missing something:

        Does type inference provide a practical benefit to you beyond saving you some keystrokes?

        What tools do you use for code review? Do you do them in GitHub/gitlab/Bitbucket or are you pulling every code review directly into your IDE? How frequently do you do code reviews?