3 ms·
100% In fact much of "debugging" when I was writing Haskell was to increasingly hand type-annotate stuff to catch where my assumptions were flawed. Definitely
by FullyFunctional 4y ago
100%
In fact much of "debugging" when I was writing Haskell was to increasingly hand type-annotate stuff to catch where my assumptions were flawed. Definitely,
top-level exported entries almost all get an explicit signature is it's part of the documentation.
Rust's level of type inference feels very natural to me and I don't miss what additional inference Haskell provided.
- dllthomas 4y ago> Rust's level of type inference feels very natural to me and I don't miss what additional inference Haskell provided. The biggest place I miss Haskell's inference is the repl; When futzing with a new library I very much appreciate being able to glue things together in ghci and ask what the type is. I don't know how to get something quite that general quite that easy in rust, although 'let _: () = my(expression)` is often good enough.
- FullyFunctional 4y agoI again agree completely, especially when learning, but even today I will occasionally prototype stuff in ghci. There is irust which seems to work well. I haven't used it enough find the limitation (eg. can you define new types at the prompt? I haven't tried).