2 ms·
Yeah, I didn't mean anything disparaging about Haskell at all. I only mentioned Haskell as an example of a functional programming language. I tried to make a po
by hencq 6y ago
Yeah, I didn't mean anything disparaging about Haskell at all. I only mentioned Haskell as an example of a functional programming language. I tried to make a point (apparently poorly) about the easy composition that using a limited number of (dynamic) types enables. Of course all the usual dynamic vs static tradeoffs apply. Thanks for doing a better job explaining that :-)
- crimsonalucard5 6y agoI don't think dynamic typing or static typing really applies. In either case you have to compose functions With the correct types otherwise you hit an error. The difference with dynamic types and static types is when this error occurs. Run time for dynamic types and compilation time for static types. Either way some type of error will always occur regardless. Though I agree with you if you have a limited number of types things become easier to deal with.