5 ms·

This is not railing. I think Haskell is supremely cool. But what we're talking about (I think) is solving a specific optimization problem. We are not talking ab

This is not railing. I think Haskell is supremely cool. But what we're talking about (I think) is solving a specific optimization problem. We are not talking about solving type-check puzzles for their own sake. What I am after is this: Does mandated type verification yield higher overall throughput to the programmer trying to deliver business value? It's clear to me that that having to pass a type checker before you can deliver business value is (at least) an upfront impedance/tax/cost. So the burden is on the person (or PL) that insists on mandating type checking everywhere that it is somehow yielding overall higher throughput. (The usual line of argument I hear is that mandated type checking etc helps in maintenance cost. But this needs to be demonstrated.) In my experience the coupling I mentioned just above is paralyzing to the team(s) trying to deliver business value. It is really the difference between an hour cost to delivery versus days.

tome 9y ago
This thread has been interesting but I think it's drifted into the realms of utter obscurity so I think we'd better leave it here. Thanks for the discussion! I'll leave you with my parting thought: I've never used Clojure but I have used Python and Haskell. My experience is that Haskell's ("mandated") type checking allows me and the teams I've worked with to deliver far more business value than Python. If Clojure would allow me to deliver even more then that would be great, but given my experience with Python I can't see how a dynamic language would do that.
- wellpast 9y ago
  I really appreciate the conversation as well. I guess my parting thought would be that this doesn't need to be that obscure. What seems to be implied in our conversation here is that the statically typed language is not introducing any extra immediate work for the programmer. But that is just false. I think it's arguable that over time that extra work may payoff, but we're not even at that conversation yet. You seem to be suggesting that because types can be inferred and not written down in many places, then the work has been removed. But the work is not in the typing, it's in the cost of making everything consistent wrt to the type checker.

tome 9y ago

This thread has been interesting but I think it's drifted into the realms of utter obscurity so I think we'd better leave it here. Thanks for the discussion! I'll leave you with my parting thought: I've never used Clojure but I have used Python and Haskell. My experience is that Haskell's ("mandated") type checking allows me and the teams I've worked with to deliver far more business value than Python. If Clojure would allow me to deliver even more then that would be great, but given my experience with Python I can't see how a dynamic language would do that.

wellpast 9y ago
I really appreciate the conversation as well. I guess my parting thought would be that this doesn't need to be that obscure. What seems to be implied in our conversation here is that the statically typed language is not introducing any extra immediate work for the programmer. But that is just false. I think it's arguable that over time that extra work may payoff, but we're not even at that conversation yet. You seem to be suggesting that because types can be inferred and not written down in many places, then the work has been removed. But the work is not in the typing, it's in the cost of making everything consistent wrt to the type checker.