Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. USstevewedig
    primarykey
    data
    text
    plurals
    1. COI'm not really sure what I'm after. It is more of a vague design heuristic than something well thought out. I think software development proceeds roughly in this sequence: A) Do the easiest/hackiest thing to get the tests passing, B) refactor/clean to maximize simplicity, C) trade some of that simplicity for efficiency (space/time). I think your range idea is a great feature for step (C). But if the language forces me to specify ranges up front (int32 vs int64), then that slows me down during steps (A) and (B) where I'm focused on correctness and simplicity. Plus, most code never gets to (C).
      singulars
    2. CO@supercat: I guess my view is that you should be able to easily specify that behavior you want. There are lots of everyday examples like yours requiring this. However, you shouldn't be forced to over-specify representation when it doesn't really matter to you.
      singulars
    3. CO@ken: Static typing is required for tools to comprehensively provide these benefits. Without knowing the type of a variable, you can't provide consistent completion and inline documentation. Without static typing, the amount of static error detection you can do is limited. Without static typing, the amount of safe automated refactorings you can do are reduced. There are lots of tradeoffs when choosing between static typing, dynamic typing, or shades of both. However I don't think it is controversial to say static typing enables better tool support than dynamic typing. (btw I'm a Python user).
      singulars
 

Querying!

 
Guidance

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload