-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
#600 add another reason (robustness in sense of type safety) for LSP #666
Conversation
Build Successful! You can find a link to the downloadable artifacts below. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No, this is completely wrong.
See #600 (comment)
@mikesperber sorry, I see that differently: type safety is (one) approach to reduce runtime problems, and thus improve robustness (aka reduce the chance of runtime errors). |
There is a confusion of terminology here: Type safety reduces the chance of runtime bugs (i.e. problems in the source code within the software), whereas runtime errors are unforeseen circumstances at run time. Type safety does nothing to reduce those. |
that's correct, @mikesperber , but I still see "robust" as an attribute that is improved by type safety - as types might be checked both at compile- AND at runtime. |
I asked another (outside) opinion and got that result:
As @danielkr did not directly answer, I close this PR without merging. |
Strictly speaking, type checking is a purely compile-time mechanism. But we digress, as a "runtime type error" might also reduce robustness. |
@gernotstarke Because of vacation and illness, I was not able to respond earlier. Regarding LSP, I am actually less concerned with type safety (in the sense of data representation) than with compliance to interface contracts (and therefore predictable behavior). As mentioned in #600, there is no need to drive this discussion any further, though. |
please also add your opinion, @kraemerdr