Popular posts

Yeah, religious developers are a real problem - probably more than non-coders (who don't know what you do anyway). They either have their go-to language, or they don't accept any other coding style than exactly what they do, and describe everything else as not readable. One of those ranted about how JS was typeless, hence bad to use, but was strictly against using TypeScript. Another one told me on some occasion that they needed an hour to understand my code, which was 100 lines of converting an XML structure to JSON in Java using Jackson.

Marco Alka yes, I can be a pain in the ass as well, but least I try to read / understand what the others have to say, learn and grow with it.

I can understand the problem with dynmaic-typed languages, and one can argue that typescript can have similar issues due to internal type coercion of javascript in IO. But still typescript, flow, reasonML ... if I want some safety, esp building larger complex application I take it anytime over no type information at all. And we can always build monads to work around the IO-type-coercion-problem. To me his reasoning was more about his comfort-zone and less about the factual problems. But I have to little information to say more than that ;D

An hour for jackson conversion? Did you have any special type informations, to few comments? I usually just define a DTO and pass it in with JacksonFormat. And TBH if I learned something within that hour, to me it is worth it. But I am more of a curious person in the end.

I just hate repeating mistakes that happen more than 3 times within different code-reviews.

So yes religions suck ;D on the other hand I am also very specific with my designs in my team and I am known to be a pain in the ass of others, forcing them to write 'readable commit messages' or 'not using string literals' which is my taste :).