On: Why Learning to Code Is So Damn Hard

[pdonis]

> Is a statically typed language more likely than a dynamic language to work correctly in production, if both have 0 tests? Yes.

I'm not sure I agree. "Work correctly" does not just mean "compile correctly". I would want to see a lot of evidence to back up any assertion that programs written in statically typed languages are less likely to contain logic errors that compile and run just fine but don't do what the programmer (or his client) actually wanted.

I agree that neither is ideal and that adding testing can improve any code.

[dragonwriter → pdonis]

> I would want to see a lot of evidence to back up any assertion that programs written in statically typed languages are less likely to contain logic errors that compile and run just fine but don't do what the programmer (or his client) actually wanted.

As certain assertions related to logic can be encoded into static types (especially in a language with a type system more like Haskell's than, say, Go's), while static typing can't eliminate all logic errors, it can reduce the probability of logic errors escaping detection in the absence of testing, since compiling a statically typed program is, in effect, a form of testing (limited to those assertions about behavior which can be encoded into the type system.)

[pdonis → dragonwriter]

> compiling a statically typed program is, in effect, a form of testing (limited to those assertions about behavior which can be encoded into the type system.)

Fair point. (Especially if, as you say, you are using a language with a type system like Haskell's, which to me is more like a program analysis engine than just a type system.)