2 ms·
Sure, but it is both exceedingly readable and exceedingly simple. It is pretty much pseudocode. Which is what we are discussing, not type safety in huge codebas
by orf 9y ago
Sure, but it is both exceedingly readable and exceedingly simple. It is pretty much pseudocode. Which is what we are discussing, not type safety in huge codebases.
- yen223 9y agoThats true in small functions, but that's also true for statically-typed languages with type inference. In OCaml, the same function would also be let add x y = x + y Looks reasonable to me, and this is statically type-checked
- Can_Not 9y agoIf I were making an argument in this case, I'd say that several other languages have fulfilled the "readability" benefit while also fulfilling orders of magnitude higher performance and type safety garuantees. This implicates that one case is write only instant legacy code and the other will be highly maintainable going forward if the codebase and team need to scale in size.