4 ms·
I expect that Java codebase isn't comparatively enormous due to types. Do they have a Haskell or OCaml client? I'd expect them to be fairly terse and have even
by im_down_w_otp 8y ago
I expect that Java codebase isn't comparatively enormous due to types.
Do they have a Haskell or OCaml client? I'd expect them to be fairly terse and have even better compile-time and run-time guarantees.
- melling 8y agoHaskell has the reputation that if it compiles, it works. Whether it’s true or not, it would be interesting to consider languages in their ability to produce correct code more quickly. While I don’t like the idea of writing 3x the amount of code, if one implementation is only 30% longer, for example, and is more likely correct on the first run, it’s still a huge productivity improvement.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- skohan 8y agoThis is my experience with statically typed languages. It may be a bit more verbose in the implementation, but it takes much less time to reach a correct solution. I find that whatever "savings" there are in terms of code volume in dynamically typed languages is usually more than made up for in the need for more tests.