Diminishing returns of static typing
34 comments · programming
- Comments34
34 comments · programming
Story details from Lobsters ↗ · linked article on blog.merovius.de.
Diminishing returns of static typing was first seen on Lobsters · Hottest on Oct 31, 2026. Since then it has appeared in 1 check on 1 different day. Its best position was #23 of 25, reached on Oct 31, 05:21 UTC. It dropped off the list after Oct 31, 05:21 UTC.
Position on Lobsters · Hottest at every check (lower is better).
Best rank per day (UTC).
A few top-level comments from Lobsters, shortened. Read the full thread on Lobsters.
The argument seems to rely on the cost of static typing, which is stated in the following four points that I challenge: > It requires more upfront investment in thinking about the correct types. I don't buy this argument at all. If you don't think about correct types in a dynamic languages, you will run into trouble…
I think one reason this whole debate irks me is the unspoken belief that programming languages need to feed the beast of productivity, which always demands results faster and cheaper. (He does mention different domains in the article.) Any language that presents any sort of negative feedback on correctness of code is…
> A simpler system can get you just as much type safety, at the expense of some repetition in code. I agree with most of the rest of your comment, but this part is untrue. Stronger type systems *do* allow you to enforce more powerful laws at compile time. At one end of the curve we have a type system like C's, which…
Archived daily, weekly and monthly lists that include this entry.
Not at the moment. It was last on the list on Oct 31, 05:21 UTC, after 1 day of trending.
#23 on Lobsters · Hottest, on Oct 31, 05:21 UTC. Trendoday checks this list every 30 minutes.
It was first seen on Oct 31, 2026 and has been on the list on 1 day (1 check) since.