Remix clone Hacker News

> Writing software without types lets you go at full speed. Full speed towards the cliff.

Isn't it strange that back when Python (or Ruby) didn't even have type hints (not type checkers, type hints!), it would easily outperform pretty much every heavily typed language?

Somehow when types weren't an option we weren't going towards the cliff, but now that they are, not using them means jumping off a cliff? Something doesn't add up.

▲

dinosaurdynasty 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's because the nature of typing has changed drastically over the last decade or so, in well known languages, going from C++/Java's `FancyObject *fancyObject = new FancyObject()` (which was definitely annoying to type, and was seen as a way to "tell the compiler how to arrange memory" as opposed to "how do we ensure constraints hold?") to modern TypeScript, where large well-typed programs can be written with barely a type annotation in sight.

There's also a larger understanding that as programs get larger and larger, they get harder to maintain and more importantly refactor, and good types help with this much more than brittle unit tests do. (You can also eliminate a lot of busywork tests with types.)

	▲	hbrn 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Large programs are harder to maintain because people don't have the balls to break them into smaller ones with proper boundaries. They prefer incremental bandaids like type hints or unit tests that make it easier to deal with the big ball of mud, instead of not building the ball in the first place.
	▲	liontwist an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		No it hasn’t? C++ type system has hardly changed (until concepts) and is one of the most powerful available. A certain generation of devs thought types were academic nonsense and then relearned the existence of those features in other languages. Now they are zealots about using them.

▲

IshKebab 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> when types weren't an option we weren't going towards the cliff

Erm yes we were. Untyped Python wasn't magically tolerable just because type hints hadn't been implemented yet.

▲

hbrn 2 hours ago | parent [-]

How come all those unicorns were built with intolerable Python/Ruby, not Java/C#/Go?

https://charliereese.ca/y-combinator-top-50-software-startup...

▲

junyjujfjf 2 hours ago | parent [-]

They are likely leveraging Django/Rails which treads the beaten path for Startups.

Startups are also more likely to do monoliths.

For Enterprise & microservices, you will start to see more Java/Go/C#.

	▲	hbrn 26 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I would expect dynamic type crowd to embrace microservices first, given how everybody says that dynamic codebases are a huge mess. Regardless, to me enterprise represents legacy, bureaucracy, incidental complexity, heavy typing, stagnation. I understand that some people would like to think that heavy type-reliance is a way for enterprise to address some of it's inherent problems. But I personally believe that it's just another symptom of enterprise mindset. Long-ass upfront design documents and "designing the layout of the program in types first" are clearly of the same nature. It's no surprise that Typescript was born at Microsoft. You want your company to stagnate sooner? Hyperfixate on types. Now your startup can feel the "joys" of enterprise even at the seed stage.
	▲	liontwist an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		This distinction makes no sense. Can you explain why types would be more relevant?