Skip to content
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

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

gernotstarke
Copy link
Member

please also add your opinion, @kraemerdr

@gernotstarke gernotstarke added nice2have-only V2025 Release 2025 minor a minor issue, where two people are sufficient to take the required decision or actions labels Oct 28, 2024
@gernotstarke gernotstarke self-assigned this Oct 28, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

Build Successful! You can find a link to the downloadable artifacts below.

Name Link
Commit 5c55100
Logs https://github.com/isaqb-org/curriculum-foundation/actions/runs/11561892522
Download https://github.com/isaqb-org/curriculum-foundation/suites/30199561150/artifacts/2114369562

Copy link
Contributor

@mikesperber mikesperber left a 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)

@gernotstarke
Copy link
Member Author

@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).

@mikesperber
Copy link
Contributor

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.

@gernotstarke
Copy link
Member Author

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.

@gernotstarke
Copy link
Member Author

I asked another (outside) opinion and got that result:

IMHO the ISO 25010:2023 qualities indirectly influenced by Liskov would be faultlessness, modularity and testability.

As @danielkr did not directly answer, I close this PR without merging.

@mikesperber
Copy link
Contributor

as types might be checked both at compile- AND at runtime.

Strictly speaking, type checking is a purely compile-time mechanism. But we digress, as a "runtime type error" might also reduce robustness.

@kraemerdr
Copy link

kraemerdr commented Dec 13, 2024

As @danielkr did not directly answer, I close this PR without merging.

@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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
minor a minor issue, where two people are sufficient to take the required decision or actions nice2have-only V2025 Release 2025
Projects
Status: Done / Implemented
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants