Hacker News Reader

> TDD in Ruby gives you a kind of certainty about the correctness your code that is hard to get in other languages.

? TDD is pretty easy in many other languages, both dynamic and static. In some ways, static type systems can enhance TDD by making testing to validate invariants that are beyond what the type system can statically verify easier, because static types can be used to generate test data automatically, so instead of specify specific tests, you specify the universally quantified invariant that must hold and the testing framework generates numerous tests. Both Haskell and Scala (and no doubt other languages) have testing frameworks that leverage the type system to allow this.

> Sure, I'm giving up a hell of a lot of performance for this safety, but it's more than worth it for my company's use case.

Surely you're not trading performance for safety, as dozens of languages are "safe" while having much higher performance over Ruby including similarly dynamic languages JavaScript and Lua, or others such as Java, Scala, Clojure, Haskell, OCaml, and so on.

There are, of course, other reasons to choose Ruby, perhaps because of Rails, large talent pool, code conciseness, etc.

You're putting words in my mouth by implying I denigrated Ruby as unsafe using a much stronger definition of safety. Ruby is type safe under the article's definitions, but I suggest that this claim doesn't carry much information content because a conclusion about the null type system is such a weak claim, like a claim about the null set.

Reducing dynamic typing's safety to a null set claim is exactly the sort of denigration I'm arguing doesn't make sense. Type doesn't disappear just because you aren't encoding it as a first-class PL design concern.

As usual, when freyrs3 says "type" he means something simpler and more specific than what you appear to mean. The whole idea is that "type safety" is both specific and not sufficient to mean anything valuable.

This discussion is just going to reduce down to a runtime tag vs formal type definition. This particular article is using the term type to mean formal type, and my comment is also under this assumption. Under that definition Ruby does have a null type system. That's not a moral judgement of it's design, it's just a fact that follows from the definitions.

Rather than debate this for the gazillionth time, I'll just point you at tel's article which breaks it down very nicely: http://tel.github.io/2014/07/08/all_you_wanted_to_know_about...

freyrs3 didn't say that these languages were unsafe, he said that they were vacuously type safe. The kinds of safety you mentioned do not arise from (static) typing and so, regardless of their validity, it's just not on topic.

How could it not be on topic, when the article clearly said that a type system is that which programs written using it “cannot go wrong”? He then proceeded to use as examples C's lack of memory safety.

With a definition that broad, you really need to examine every extant approach to solving the problem, even if you don't want to go in that direction.

He starts with an intuition-bound definition then clarifies as time goes on. Ultimately "go wrong" needs to be embedded in the type system before it applies.

Other things are obviously language safety features, but just are not "types" in the sense of how some languages are "type safe".