4 ms·

Huh? I'm pointing out that the phrase used by OP doesn't really make much sense. I'm not like a dank profunctor whiz or something but I think I know what co/con

• ajross 8y ago
  I probably should have written "kerfufflery" or something more colorful. The point was that dicking around with your type system trying to "understand contravariance" is directly hurting your ability to write and ship working solutions to real problems. Typesafety is only one axis (and a minor one at that) required by correct software, and this kind of masturbatory obsession with it doing no one any good. There's a reason why so little true world class software (in the sense of beating out the competition with the sheer force of its value to users) is written in Haskell. If that's "anti-progress", then sign me up I guess.
• jmull 8y ago
  The OP's statement doesn't make sense to you. That doesn't necessarily mean OP's point doesn't make sense or that OP doesn't know what he/she it talking about. It means you need more info before you can judge. (Also: I didn't mean to make any statement about your knowledge of type systems. I was referring to your understanding of what OP was attempting to communicate.)
  • tome 8y ago
    OP's statement doesn't make much sense in context of the article under discussion. Perhaps it make sense in another context.