5 ms·

Completely untrue. I'm not a Haskell evangelist (I appreciate it for what it is) but I thought I would at the very least point out that most of the documentatio

Completely untrue. I'm not a Haskell evangelist (I appreciate it for what it is) but I thought I would at the very least point out that most of the documentation for basic data structures (i.e. Data.List[1]) not only are well-documented but have a link on the far-right side of the documentation site that directly shows you the source code and it's usually easy to tell what it's doing. Any developer should be able to grok that code and determine the run-time complexity. [1] https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.9.1.0/docs/Data-List.html https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.9.1.0/docs/Data-L...

seagreen 10y ago
I think he's talking about how it can be hard to tell what's already been evaluated and what hasn't.
astrobe_ 10y ago
I'm not a C evangelist, but I would point out that most documentation of standard C function is very detailed and its code is shown in its man page. Any developer should be able to grok that code and determine its safety. Mattaku...
- sdflkd 10y ago
  They really should be able to.
  - astrobe_ 10y ago
    You're completely missing the point: people are not computers. They make mistakes, including while they check things. That's why you don't want to rely on tests, but rather on formal proof.