Item — HN Reader

to quote grugbrain.dev:

>grug very like type systems make programming easier. for grug, type systems most value when grug hit dot on keyboard and list of things grug can do pop up magic. this 90% of value of type system or more to grug

>big brain type system shaman often say type correctness main point type system, but grug note some big brain type system shaman not often ship code. grug suppose code never shipped is correct, in some sense, but not really what grug mean when say correct

>grug say tool magic pop up of what can do and complete of code major most benefit of type system, correctness also good but not so nearly so much

4 comments

Haha, I love this.

I wrote up something similar [0] but not quite as creative. Discoverability and Locus of Control are two of the best reasons to use OOP that rarely comes up in the academic discussion of OOP as a practice.

Honestly, OOP is many cases is simply more practical.

Even imperative code has its merits; case in point: it's often much easier to debug.

[0] https://medium.com/@chrlschn/weve-been-teaching-object-orien...

> https://grugbrain.dev/

How could I miss that?

Gold! Thanks!

>but grug must to grug be true, and "no" is magic grug word. Hard say at first, especially if you nice grug and don't like disappoint people (many such grugs!) but easier over time even though shiney rock pile not as high as might otherwise be

>is ok: how many shiney rock grug really need anyway?

... I actually needed to see this today

Great, but anybody who says correctness is the point of types has completely failed to understand what types are for.

Good types do work for you, so that you don't need to write the code to do that work. Correctness is a side effect, because being wrong would take more work.