4 ms·

Please be nice. jbooth, if you try Haskell out you'll be very surprised. It's often true - it's just that it takes a lot more work to get a Haskell program to

• silentbicycle 16y ago
  You're right - I should have been more critical of the comment, rather than making it personal. I agree with the sentiment that often, "once it compiles, it's correct", but people don't stress what Matt Might does enough: "In fact, experienced programmers become adept at encoding correctness constraints directly into the Haskell type system." If you just write Haskell (OCaml, etc.) like you would Python, it's not going to make much difference - it's all about representing higher-level assumptions at the type level, and many people new to H-M languages don't know how to do that effectively.
  • jbooth 16y ago
    * Bugs in the spec * Bugs in underlying system calls * I/O error handling * String processing (if you want to tell me how a type system prevents string processing bugs, I'd love to hear it) There's no such thing as a magic bullet, and the claim is way overstated. It might be less prone to bugs than loosely typed systems, that's something I'd have no problem believing. I'm a fan of strong typing myself.