JS gives you wrong answers silently when thigns go sideways since for the original browser use case, they didn't want scripts to ever stop execution. It's the opposite of Python in this respect.
replyYou are going to have to give more support for those assertions. I write Python every day, and never would I call it a good candidate for the clankers. Pretty much any dynamic language would be ruled out, as there is too much implicit logic which makes it harder to understand what is happening.
replyPython with a strict linter and type checker (eg ruff with the right lints on and ty with its stricter settings, or strict pyright if performance isn't too bad) works very well. Most of Python strengths (concise, large ecosystem, well represented in the LLM training data) while having good static analysis.
replyYou don't need that, gets in the way more than it helps. Even Typescript isn't really needed, but at least it's decent devex unlike the Python typing stuff. What really helps is testing.
replyI trust the type system more than vibe tests.
replyI try to capture as much as possible in types/schemas/constraints (then lint rules) and then only as a last resort write tests. And as few and complementary as possible. And I want a functional core with unit tests and imperative shell and not a bunch of complex mocks. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
replyWhat's better for this, Go? That's the least verbose static one, and it's still a lot more verbose without helping you understand any better what it's doing. It's just faster. That's the real benefit of static types.
reply