Echo JS 0.11.0

<~>

jklu 748 days ago. link 5 points
Eric again plugging his courses
ericelliott 746 days ago. link 1 point
You're welcome to ignore my posts, but you'll miss out on a lot of valuable content that I share for free. The only cost is they come with links to my site at the bottom, which you're also free to ignore. I couldn't spend so much time creating so much educational content without those links. I have to make a living. =)
spalger 748 days ago. link 2 points
Also, I feel ashamed for falling for that click-bait title.
spalger 748 days ago. link 0 point
This argument doesn't seem to make any sense....
ericelliott 746 days ago. link 0 point
What argument? What the article says is:

1. Evidence doesn't support the idea that static types reduce bug density.
2. Static types are cool anyway because they enable useful developer tools.
3. If you want to reduce bug density, lots of evidence supports the use of TDD.
spalger 746 days ago. link 2 points
How does:

  I’m not aware of any empirical evidence that static types have a strong impact on bug density.

lead you to make the assertion:

  So in spite of the cool developer tooling they enable, **static types don’t actually help reduce over-all bug density by very much.** [emphasis in the original]

especially when the only real study you quote ends with "we are unable to quantify the specific effects of language type on usage"
ericelliott 730 days ago. link 0 point
Without any empirical evidence, how could I conclude anything different?