4 ms·

Looks like my previous comment was too mean towards JavaScript, so trying this again... Just using some form of static typing offers easy guarantees without mu

Looks like my previous comment was too mean towards JavaScript, so trying this again... Just using some form of static typing offers easy guarantees without much effort. Trying to Monad-ify everything for a much smaller level of compiler guarantees involves much higher dev effort (as most devs do not understand Monads), and much higher effort involved in anyone reading the code.

anonzzzies 3y ago
I agree with this, but I still think it has benefit, if only giving a lot of skill to the dev pulling it off. It’s a trade off of course. I myself like writing and reading it more, and I detest ‘move fast, break many subtle things you will find out only after it’s too late’. I carved out niches for myself that are hard but fulfilling and I don’t really need to worry about spending months on something some ‘gunslinger’ can put together in 3 days as my clients like long term robustness. There are devices out there 2-10 years and replacement is painful, so let’s not. We see cases with clients (I wish I could name: you will know some of them) were they have a server in the cloud and client in embedded hardware and needing to replace all devices because either client or server or both popped a security issue that would mess certification. It is also expensive to fix things without hardware: everything is iso/pci and needing recertification to changing anything. So the 100k you spend for going for perfection pays off. So far at least.
- c_crank 3y ago
  What I would take issue with is describing a non functional or non Monadified code as something written by a gunslinger without care for robustness, as if writing things in Monads has a guarantee of robustness or correctness or even maintainability.
  - anonzzzies 3y ago
    My time to peddle back; you are right. Didn’t mean to imply that, but did. I do see (irl) that it improves the odds though.
    - c_crank 3y ago
      My IRL experience with pure functional code in academia was so unpleasant that I have since strived to stay as far away from it as I possibly can.
      - anonzzzies 3y ago
        I am not sure we need to go pure functional all over, but I recognise your suffering. I mean; I like the intellectual challenge of building something ‘perfect’ that cannot be used, however there is a mix to be had. I thought Mercury always had a nice idea; its prolog with types and adding det makes it stricter.

anonzzzies 3y ago

I agree with this, but I still think it has benefit, if only giving a lot of skill to the dev pulling it off. It’s a trade off of course. I myself like writing and reading it more, and I detest ‘move fast, break many subtle things you will find out only after it’s too late’. I carved out niches for myself that are hard but fulfilling and I don’t really need to worry about spending months on something some ‘gunslinger’ can put together in 3 days as my clients like long term robustness. There are devices out there 2-10 years and replacement is painful, so let’s not. We see cases with clients (I wish I could name: you will know some of them) were they have a server in the cloud and client in embedded hardware and needing to replace all devices because either client or server or both popped a security issue that would mess certification. It is also expensive to fix things without hardware: everything is iso/pci and needing recertification to changing anything. So the 100k you spend for going for perfection pays off. So far at least.

c_crank 3y ago
What I would take issue with is describing a non functional or non Monadified code as something written by a gunslinger without care for robustness, as if writing things in Monads has a guarantee of robustness or correctness or even maintainability.
- anonzzzies 3y ago
  My time to peddle back; you are right. Didn’t mean to imply that, but did. I do see (irl) that it improves the odds though.
  - c_crank 3y ago
    My IRL experience with pure functional code in academia was so unpleasant that I have since strived to stay as far away from it as I possibly can.
    - anonzzzies 3y ago
      I am not sure we need to go pure functional all over, but I recognise your suffering. I mean; I like the intellectual challenge of building something ‘perfect’ that cannot be used, however there is a mix to be had. I thought Mercury always had a nice idea; its prolog with types and adding det makes it stricter.