4 ms·

Right, http://books.google.com/books?id=1MsETFPD3I0C&lpg=PP1&hl=ca&pg=PA71#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=1MsETFPD3I0C&lpg=PP1&#3... It ac

Right, http://books.google.com/books?id=1MsETFPD3I0C&lpg=PP1&hl=ca&pg=PA71#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=1MsETFPD3I0C&lpg=PP1&#3... It actually came from Smalltalk, just for a change.

DanielRibeiro 15y ago
Well, Unit Tests also came from it (SUnit was the first Unit Test framework). Which is unsurprising, as refactoring without unit tests is quite daunting. But JUnit did make them mainstream, and so did Eclipse' refactorings.
- eru 15y ago
  Interestingly, refactoring usually works quite well for functional Haskell code without tests just relying on the types. (Of course the types won't help you in more imperative sections of your code, i.e. it's hard to guarantee a specific order of actions in the IO Monad with types only.)
  - brazzy 15y ago
    You mean just like in Java?
    - eru 15y ago
      Yes. But the pure part of your program tends to be bigger in Haskell than in Java.
      - masklinn 15y ago
        And the type system (and compiler) help you know what's pure and what's not.
silentbicycle 15y ago
Actually, the Smalltalk community got it from Forth, where it was called "factoring" (no "re-"). See e.g. Leo Brodie's _Thinking Forth_ (http://thinking-forth.sourceforge.net/ http://thinking-forth.sourceforge.net/).