8 ms·
Sure, not all type systems are created equal. And there are indeed type systems that can catch more errors than Haskell's (although that usually comes at the pr
by rkrzr 10y ago
Sure, not all type systems are created equal. And there are indeed type systems that can catch more errors than Haskell's (although that usually comes at the price of losing type inference).
But I read OP's point as "Well, you can never catch all programming errors with PL_feature_X, so why even bother." And my point is simply that a lot of PL features make formerly hard things easy and thus allow you to go faster and focus on more interesting things.
- braveo 10y agoYou completely misunderstood what he was trying to tell you.
- msbarnett 10y agoThere was nothing interesting in what he was trying to say. Yes, no programming language perfectly eliminates all classes of unsafety. But that's no reason to let the perfect be the enemy of the good! "The issue with safety is..." no issue at all. Being safe in a bunch of problem domains (Rust) is still strictly better than being safe in very few if any of them (C).