>The experience was not that my program became more safe in the sense that I could ship it without sweat on my brow. No, it was that it just worked, and I could completely skip the entire debugging process that is core to the development experience of Julia, because I had gotten all the errors at compile time.
>And this was for small scripts. I can only imagine the productivity boots that static analysis gives you for larger projects when you can safely refactor, because you know immediately if you do something wrong.
Getting the program right the first time can't _possibly_ apply to programs larger than a small script. Type errors are only 2% of all bugs in large programs with companies behind them. When a big Rust program fails, then you have to contend with the fact that you can't even set a debugger checkpoint where an error occurs:
Obviously people wouldn't be asking for that if the type and borrow checkers caught all the bugs at compile time. Not even close!
And not only can't you debug errors, you also can't change the program at all. All you can do is terminate the program, generate a new one from modified source code, and run the new program. I hope that bug you were working on is simple enough that you can reproduce it with a unit test!
LOL Rust problems!
Now if only Rust had resumable exception handling, could be incrementally compiled, allowed function and type redefinitions at runtime, and wasn't designed as if we were still in the punched card era but with files instead of cards. That would give you far more of a productivity boost than a type checker.
>And this was for small scripts. I can only imagine the productivity boots that static analysis gives you for larger projects when you can safely refactor, because you know immediately if you do something wrong.
Getting the program right the first time can't _possibly_ apply to programs larger than a small script. Type errors are only 2% of all bugs in large programs with companies behind them. When a big Rust program fails, then you have to contend with the fact that you can't even set a debugger checkpoint where an error occurs:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/54144
Obviously people wouldn't be asking for that if the type and borrow checkers caught all the bugs at compile time. Not even close!
And not only can't you debug errors, you also can't change the program at all. All you can do is terminate the program, generate a new one from modified source code, and run the new program. I hope that bug you were working on is simple enough that you can reproduce it with a unit test!
LOL Rust problems!
Now if only Rust had resumable exception handling, could be incrementally compiled, allowed function and type redefinitions at runtime, and wasn't designed as if we were still in the punched card era but with files instead of cards. That would give you far more of a productivity boost than a type checker.