3 ms·
I don't see that at all. To me it was clearly about how using a language that is designed to be correct rather than useful/ simple places more responsibility on
by tclancy 9y ago
I don't see that at all. To me it was clearly about how using a language that is designed to be correct rather than useful/ simple places more responsibility on the coder to think about the entirety of their problem before digging in.
- sidlls 9y agoWe can agree to disagree. I see no evidence to support your generalization in the article. It's also a contentious assertion besides, since the implication is that people who don't use "correct rather than useful/simple" language don't "think about the entirety of their problem before digging in."
- runeks 9y agoI’ve encountered multiple times that Haskell has forced me understand exactly what I was doing, otherwise the parts wouldn’t fit together, or I’d end up writing huge amounts of duplicate code. I’ve never encountered this in another language.
- sidlls 9y agoPerhaps that says more about you than the languages?
- runeks 9y agoHow do you figure?
- sidlls 9y agoWhether you understand a problem completely is independent of your choice of language to implement it in. The notion that Haskell is allegedly requires complete understanding first where other languages don't is both unsupported and also irrelevant. The implication that "Haskell people" seek to understand things first while other language users don't is an assertion at best (and that's being charitable).
- Roboprog 9y agoI can't see most "Info Services" type management buying into something requiring that level of effort prior to having anything to show for it. Right or wrong, just sayin'.
- runeks 9y agoIt definitely depends on the cost of failure. If it’s 30 minutes of downtime, it might not be worth it. But if it’s losing all customer funds, it’d be irresponsible not to put this level of effort into it.