Hacker News Reader

> In fact, a strong contender for the absolute worst codebase I've worked on was in Go.

So the most notoriously limited typesystem of the century, the one that ignored decades of progress, lead to a bad codebase? And you see this as an argument against type systems?

View on HN

I don't think I was making any arguments. Furthermore, if there's a takeaway from my comment, is that I don't think there are arguments to be said in that particular discussion, only opinions supported by one's specific experience. There's certainly a dearth of solid empirical evidence one way or the other.

I was also agreeing with GP's saying that "static typing won't save us". There are many things to say about Go's type system, but it is definitely more static than Python's, which I've also worked with.

Go-style type systems won't save us, but Go's type system is literally from the early 1950s. It's closer to Python's type system (i.e. unityping - "static type system" is a tautology, the things that Python calls types are not types) than it is to a post-ML type system. Judging the limits of type systems based on Go is like judging the limits of VR based on the Virtual Boy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com