3 ms·
No argument there. My point is "balance", though. You lose some guarantees, but gain a lot, and the quality of a codebase will always be up to its programmers.
by facorreia 10y ago
No argument there. My point is "balance", though. You lose some guarantees, but gain a lot, and the quality of a codebase will always be up to its programmers.
- runeks 10y ago> You lose some guarantees, but gain a lot, and the quality > of a codebase will always be up to its programmers. I started using Haskell because I thought it was cool how it could spread out work over multiple cores. I continue using it because of its guarantees, enabling me to do large refactors and be reasonably confident that the compiler has caught all errors (if I construct my types properly). I would argue that the only true value a compiler has to offer are guarantees. A compiler that is able to do something "most of the time" isn't worth much. So, losing some guarantees may be both crucial and irrelevant, depending on which guarantees we're talking about.