3 ms·
I think yes. I do F# for a lot of time, and looking at past code I can't just figure some stuff. Not only their type system look alike dynamic, it make you buil
by mamcx 6y ago
I think yes. I do F# for a lot of time, and looking at past code I can't just figure some stuff. Not only their type system look alike dynamic, it make you build some stuff that is IMPOSSIBLE to get without a serious look at the types: And the types are invisible and behind abstracts constructs.
With python, for example, I can't at first see what a function need but at least see the body give huge clues, because python rely less of abstract type stuff (it have a issue with monkey patching and delayed build of objects BUT, "if look like a duck.." is most of the time enough to get things..
- gmfawcett 6y agoF# lets you specify the types of function arguments and return values. If it will make your code easier to read and reason about, why not just do that? I use Ocaml a lot, which is very similar to F# as you know... and I document the types of all toplevel values in my code. Not because the compiler needs it, but because it helps me navigate the code more easily.
- mamcx 6y agoYeah, but it is not very idiomatic and if I need to put types everywhere, but is the point of it at the end? Is like people that type python: Is screaming is the wrong tool for the job :)