3 ms·
If you're prototyping and exploring, most likely you're not going to need to fix that code anyways, so it would be a waste of time (unless you're already effici
by cle 10y ago
If you're prototyping and exploring, most likely you're not going to need to fix that code anyways, so it would be a waste of time (unless you're already efficient with Haskell dev).
I'm a big believer in exploring problem spaces with loose, flexible tools that let you get to the point ASAP and ignore unrelated stuff. If you're then going to build a long-lived, high-availability production system, then take what you learned and harden your design using tools built for long-lived, high-availability production systems (e.g. static typing, formal methods, etc.).
- Ericson2314 10y agoYeah I just don't recall a type error where the low chance of hitting it outways the cost of fixing it. The joy of good languages is closing the gap between prototyping and production, research and practice.