The Artima Developer Community
Sponsored Link

Scala Buzz
Bugs and dynamically vs statically typed languages

0 replies on 1 page.

Welcome Guest
  Sign In

Go back to the topic listing  Back to Topic List Click to reply to this topic  Reply to this Topic Click to search messages in this forum  Search Forum Click for a threaded view of the topic  Threaded View   
Previous Topic   Next Topic
Flat View: This topic has 0 replies on 1 page
Daniel Sobral

Posts: 80
Nickname: 57409
Registered: Aug, 2008

Daniel Sobral is an old dog trying to learn new tricks.
Bugs and dynamically vs statically typed languages Posted: Dec 11, 2012 4:32 PM
Reply to this message Reply

This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Scala Buzz by Daniel Sobral.
Original Post: Bugs and dynamically vs statically typed languages
Feed Title: Algorithmically challenged
Feed URL: http://dcsobral.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default
Feed Description: Random thoughts of an IT worker in the stone age of computer science.
Latest Scala Buzz Posts
Latest Scala Buzz Posts by Daniel Sobral
Latest Posts From Algorithmically challenged

Advertisement
Something occurred to me that, unfortunately, was just a little bit too big for a tweet, so I decided to blog instead, and add more context.

While thinking about the perennial question of whether static typing help reduce the number of bugs in an otherwise well tested code base, I was reminded of how many bugs I saw tagged by newer versions of Scala with improved static analysis and correctness, or how damn hard it is to do variance right when you start using it.

I was then struck by a thought: the "bugs" I was thinking of were not caught by tests because no feature in the code actually used the buggy class in a way that revealed the bug. This also relates to variance, because variance in Java is defined at the usage site, instead of definition site. The definitions are all invariant in Java (aside from arrays).

So, thinking about it, I came up with the following hypothesis:

Dynamically typed language proponents consider "bugs" to be things that the user of the software can cause it to do, while statically typed language proponents consider "bugs" to be things that users of the code can cause it to do.

That would certainly account for some differences in attitude and beliefs I perceive. On the other hand, it might just be my imagination.

Read: Bugs and dynamically vs statically typed languages

Topic: Veripacks 0.1 - Verify Package Specifications Previous Topic   Next Topic Topic: Starting with Scala Macros: a short tutorial


Sponsored Links



Google
  Web Artima.com   

Copyright © 1996-2014 Artima, Inc. All Rights Reserved. - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Advertise with Us