4 ms·
It's a higher dimension of RUNTIME fuck ups. Leveraging the type system for COMPILE TIME dynamic programming is not only safer, but more runtime-efficient. Wan
by sscarduzio 11y ago
It's a higher dimension of RUNTIME fuck ups.
Leveraging the type system for COMPILE TIME dynamic programming is not only safer, but more runtime-efficient.
Wanna be clever? Here you go, be type-safely clever:
https://vimeo.com/channels/flatmap2015/128466887 https://vimeo.com/channels/flatmap2015/128466887
http://www.haskellforall.com/2012/06/you-could-have-invented-free-monads.html http://www.haskellforall.com/2012/06/you-could-have-invented...
With a good type system, you won't need reflection. If it compiles, it will work.
And give me a break on the "cut out the dumb people" part, I heard it many times from people right before they shoot themselves on a foot. Repeatedly.
As engineers, it's our job to solve problem and reduce complexity. Fail at either of the two, you have been a shit engineer.