3 ms·
> But I also admire the patience of anyone who actually manages to use it in practice Nothing you point out gets even close, in my mind, to stuff like null poi
by youerbt 5y ago
> But I also admire the patience of anyone who actually manages to use it in practice
Nothing you point out gets even close, in my mind, to stuff like null pointers or untyped code. So I wonder what languages you have in mind that require less patience.
> you need IO for that. Which the language makes intentionally hard to use
Well, that is simply not true.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- caente 5y ago>Nothing you point out gets even close, in my mind, to stuff like null pointers or untyped code. So I wonder what languages you have in mind that require less patience. You two are talking about two different things: - The parent is talking about the ecosystem, how menial tasks have tooling in "less interesting" languages - You are talking about the language itself I would venture to guess that the parent would agree with you, if talking about the language in a vacuum. An interesting competition would be to develop a complex product, without external dependencies. My sad guess is that languages that are filled with escape hatches, like Java, Javascript, or python, would defeat more strict languages. It's a sad guess, because I actually do prefer the Haskell way.
- smegma2 5y ago> Well, that is simply not true. I think it's true, for example catch [1] requires IO. Do you mean with unsafePerformIO, or something else? 1: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.16.0.0/docs/Control-Exception.html#v:catch https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.16.0.0/docs/Contr...