4 ms·
> The thing about Turing-complete languages is that the only real dimmension of power is their expressiveness - i.e. how much boilerplate do you have to write t
by lihaoyi 11y ago
> The thing about Turing-complete languages is that the only real dimmension of power is their expressiveness - i.e. how much boilerplate do you have to write to implement something
Have fun implementing your compile-time Common Lisp typechecker.
I mean, you can do it. I have friends implementing a typechecker for Python, and it works. As for me, I'm very happy to have someone else implementing/debugging/maintaining a typechecker for me so i can do other things with my time, like watch cats climb into boxes on youtube.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoCommon Lisp has a compile-time typechecker. But anyway, that's kind of my point. Typechecker is the kind of excess feature the principle of least power would like you to reject.
- lmm 11y agoIn practical terms I need a typechecker to write code at anything like the rate I do, with anything like the defect rate I achieve. But that's possibly sophistry. I agree the principle is not quite right (or at least not quite absolute) as stated; using extra power has a high but finite cost, it is occasionally worth using more power than you strictly need if the benefit is high enough.