> Most of the time when I review code my remarks is: it should be a 10 lines function, why did you write 10 classes with 10 getters and setters each?
This is the fault of the language or programmer itself instead of its type system.
I am programming in Dart and sometimes I feel that I am writing some code just to workaround some limitations in the language (the language itself is nice 90% of time, just to make it clear).
Now, I also program in Python using mypy, and I never needed to write "10 getters and setters" to make the compiler happy. Sometimes I do need to write additional code to make mypy happy, but generally it is in overly clever code that mypy doesn't understand. So generally fixing the issues makes the code better.
> This is the fault of the language or programmer itself instead of its type system.
Not that I disagree, but I argue that bad programmers are the result of bad languages enabling them and bad use of types by the programmers is the result of a bad implementation of types in the language.
Most of the statically typed languages around are used to enforce conventions inside large teams of coders, they are not used to "model the problem elegantly".
If type driven development really produced bug free code while requiring the same cognitive load as hammering tens of lines of code one after the other, we will all be using something like Idris.
> Most of the statically typed languages around are used to enforce conventions inside large teams of coders
This is not the fault of the type system though. It is the fault of things like enforcing access via private/protected/public keywords. While most people confuse this with a static type system, this is not part of the type system.
> [..] they are not used to "model the problem elegantly".
I concur, but let me make my point more clearly: this is either the fault of the language for not allowing the programmer to express itself clearly, or it is the fault of the programmer by using patterns from a less expressive programming language in a more expressive programming language.
This is not the fault of the type system, that doesn't (by itself) require the user to create a Class with getters and setters for every attribute, for example. If the language you're using makes you do those kinda of things, it is the problem with the language itself, the type system is just the point of the iceberg (that is making the problem worse).
> If type driven development really produced bug free code while requiring the same cognitive load as hammering tens of lines of code one after the other, we will all be using something like Idris.
It doesn't produce bug free code (because there is still logic bugs), but it helps to reduce the number of bugs. But only in expressive type systems that are also sound. The Java type system for example doesn't help much (however I think they implemented nullables at some point, so the situation should be better).
This is the fault of the language or programmer itself instead of its type system.
I am programming in Dart and sometimes I feel that I am writing some code just to workaround some limitations in the language (the language itself is nice 90% of time, just to make it clear).
Now, I also program in Python using mypy, and I never needed to write "10 getters and setters" to make the compiler happy. Sometimes I do need to write additional code to make mypy happy, but generally it is in overly clever code that mypy doesn't understand. So generally fixing the issues makes the code better.