On 13/06/2016 03:53, Daniel Prager wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Matthew Butterick <m...@mbtype.com <mailto:m...@mbtype.com>> wrote:Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use Typed Racket." Now they have (Pairof Problem Problem). Most droll ! Taken seriously, when is the right time for TR vs Contracts vs lots of tests vs whatever?
And, in the long run, for a synthesis. TR, contracts, and tests are all ways to formulate assertions about code. Today, it's the code authors who have to learn the subtleties of these different techniques and choose between them. I'd prefer to be able to write down all the assertions I can reasonably make about my code, and which I consider of use for human readers of my code, in a single place and notation, and let some program figure what which parts are best verified/enforced using which approach and at which time.
In my opinion, this is one main reason why so many programmers still prefer dynamic typing. They do see the advantages of having compilers perform checks, the more the better, but designing code with the idiosyncracies of the type-checkers-of-the-day as top priority isn't a very appealing approach.
Konrad. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
