Thread by @tottinge

X = fn(1, 34, AFFIRM|REPLY|OTHER, 42.314);

This function prototype is fraught with risk. There are too many things that could go subtly wrong without causing a crash. Worse if you have weak typing (AKA moderately aggressive type coercion).

And yet I see it’s ilk in many programs.
Flags, indicators, meaningful values, digit strings treated as numbers... you can malform the call without warning.

This is why I value small classes.

int celcius = 20;
int fahrenheit = celsius ;

SetTemperature(int x)

Integers are not appropriate here. They make no sense.
The most primitive type isn’t the safest or simplest.
Primitive obsession makes coding complicated and risky.

We could just make all programmers more careful so the code can stay dangerous. It is a choice that has huge ongoing costs.

Or we can make less risky code.

“It isn’t worth the cost of making a small class here” is a good assertion to make.

What is lifetime cost to ensure that nobody uses the code incorrectly, and what it will cost each time someone does?

... Compared to typing a dozen more lines of code.

These aren’t questions about what is morally better, but about cost and safety.

Sometimes spending a bit more time to increase safety saves time and money.