Friedrich wrote: > "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On 2008 Oct 19, at 2:26, Friedrich wrote: >>> Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>>> (By the way, putting in the top level type declarations helps a lot >>>> when you make a mistake.) >>> Well I have my problems with that. Probably it comes from using >>> Languages like Ruby and my special dislike of "typing things" comes >>> especially from Java, C++ (well C is not "innocent" in that regard >>> also. >> >> Learn to love types: one of the neat things about Haskell is that if >> you can write down the type of a function then you have usually done >> 90% of the work of writing the code for it. > Well I disagree. But that's another story. > >> Another is that in >> general, if you can't express the type of a function, it means you >> haven't thought through what you're trying to do. > > No that's not true. The use implies that. However I'm not advice > resistant and will see if I use types. But IMHO that's should be job > of the environment to figure out correctly and most of the time > Haskell does "guess" right. And I surely can ask for the types. > It's true for people who use Haskell a lot. The reason is that Haskell types are fundamentally different from types in C (and related). I think it has to do with how you reason about a program's behavior. A well-designed Haskell program has types that are extremely well-suited to the problem domain, and as such the type often encapsulates everything you need to know about the function.
John Lato _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
