> zcaudate <z...@caudate.me> Oct 05 08:35PM -0700
I'm a little bit miffed over this current craze of `types` and
`correctness` of programs. It smells to me of the whole `object` craze of
the last two decades. I agree that types (like objects) have their uses,
especially in very well defined problems, but they have got me in trouble
over and over again when I am working in an area where the goal is unclear
and requirements are constantly changing.
Joe Armstrong and Simon Peyton Jones discuss Erlang and Haskell
http://www.infoq.com/interviews/armstrong-peyton-jones-erlang-haskell
This interview covers some of the strong-types vs flexible development
(apparent) dichotomy, but in a playful, open and non-dogmatic way. (catmatic?)
Simon Peyton Jones is one of the Haskell leaders, yet admits to
being envious of type-free generics. Joe Armstrong of Erlang fame
also sees the benefit to thinking in and annotating types.
These two are both leaders of typed or dynamic cults but have
a pleasant friendly and frank conversation about the issues.
(Erlang's Dialyzer sounds somewhat like core.typed)
A sample:
SPJ: So, I've told you what I most envy about Erlang. What do you most envy
about Haskell?
JA: All the types. I mean they're very nice. I wish we had them. On the other
hand, wouldn't you love to have all these generic turn-to-binary, these sort
of things? How can you live without them?
SPJ: I have a little bit of residual envy about generics.
JA: You just take anything and compare it to the serializer and then send it?
SPJ: That's sinfully easy, and shouldn't be allowed.
So if these two can agree that there's strengths and weaknesses in both
approaches, that settles it for me. It's a matter of knowing your
trade-offs and choosing your tools appropriately.
My suspicion is that type affinity is related to some trait of personality,
and so trying to "prove" superiority is a likely to work as "proving" you
are right in any other clash of personalities.
Brad
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
