FizzyOrange

Yeah but this one is actually good. So hopefully it will displace all the others.

Wow look at that CUPS code and tell me with a straight face there aren't 5 more similar vulnerabilities waiting to be found...

I seriously wonder what kind of circumstances lead someone to be this irrationally devoted to such a flawed and outclassed language. Probably best if I just block you though...

Yeah this sort of stuff reads a lot like philosophy nonsense babble to me. I think maybe it isn't nonsense like the philosophy stuff but it sure would be nice if they gave a few concrete examples to demonstrate that.

The Background link does make sense... but it also seems kind of trivial. Giving the idea of mapping programming language semantics to an existing domain like mathematics a complex name like "denotational semantics" just serves to make it harder to understand and more impenetrable.

Generally I think naming things should make them easier to understand, e.g. naming "a number that represents the address of another object" a "pointer" is great, because it literally is something that points to another thing.

Denotational semantics is a terrible terrible name. I'm not even sure it should have a name. Can we call it "mathematical semantics" (if you map to maths)?

(I may be totally wrong here because I'm not a denotational semantics expert, but I have at least tried to follow it before getting whacked in the face with a load of philosophy.)

Reminds me a lot of REST. The core idea of REST is very simple, but it's also really hard to learn what that idea is because so much of it is hidden behind bullshit philosophy.

Go to bed, you're drunk.

I've never done it but apparently you can actually gradually transition to Typescript one file at a time by renaming them from .js to .ts. Might help a bit. Good luck anyway!

Yeah IntelliJ does amazingly without type annotations but even it can't do everything. E.g. if you're using libraries without type annotations, or if you don't call functions with every possible type (is your testing that good? No.)

Static types have other benefits anyway so you should use them even if everyone in your team uses IntelliJ.

In common usage a linter detects code that is legal but likely a mistake, or code that doesn't follow best practice.

Although static type checkers do fit in that definition, that definition is overly broad and they would not be called a "linter".

Here is how static type checkers describe themselves:

Pyright is a full-featured, standards-based static type checker for Python.

Mypy is a static type checker for Python.

TypeScript is a strongly typed programming language that builds on JavaScript, giving you better tooling at any scale.

Sorbet is a fast, powerful type checker designed for Ruby.

Here is how linters describe themselves:

Pylint is a static code analyser for Python 2 or 3. ... Pylint analyses your code without actually running it. It checks for errors, enforces a coding standard, looks for code smells, and can make suggestions about how the code could be refactored.

(Ok I guess it's a bit redundant for Pylint to say it is a linter.)

Eslint: The pluggable linting utility for JavaScript and JSX

Clippy: A collection of lints to catch common mistakes and improve your Rust code.

Ruff: An extremely fast Python linter and code formatter, written in Rust.

You get the idea... Linters are heuristic and advisory. Quite different to static type checking.

Honestly I would take a look through a good standard library that provides a lot of algorithms (e.g. C++ or Rust). That has the basics, especially for data structures.

Also have a go at some hacker rank tests. Especially if you want to learn dynamic programming (abysmal name), they absolutely love that.

Linters 100% won't. A static type checker is not a linter.

Yes because you used static type annotations. This thread was about code that doesn't use static types (or static type annotations/hints).

It's an example to demonstrate that linters cannot reliably detect variable name typos - you need static types. None of the stuff you mentioned is relevant.

The typo in your example is also undetectable by linters. I think you're missing the point.