• nous@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    This is an absolute terrible post :/ I cannot believe he thinks that is a good argument at all. It basically boils down to:

    Here is a new feature modern languages are starting to adopt.

    You might thing that is a good thing. Lists various reasonable reasons it might be a good thing.

    The question is: Whose job is it to manage that risk? Is it the language’s job? Or is it the programmer’s job?

    And then moves on to the next thing in the same pattern. He lists loads of reasonable reasons you might want the feature gives no reasons you would not want it and but says everything in a way to lead you into thinking you are wrong to think you want these new features while his only true arguments are why you do want them…

    It makes no sense.

    • Sleepless One@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeesh, I thought you were being hyperbolic, but it really is that bad! He even has this massive self report towards the end:

      And how do you avoid being punished? There are two ways. One that works; and one that doesn’t. The one that doesn’t work is to design everything up front before coding. The one that does avoid the punishment is to override all the safeties.

      And so you will declare all your classes and all your functions open. You will never use exceptions. And you will get used to using lots and lots of ! characters to override the null checks and allow NPEs to rampage through your systems.

      Uncle Bob must be the kind of guy who makes all of his types any when writing Typescript.