3 ms·

Yes, things like changes to core library types are disastrous. But, if you have a core data-type that you know will change and you haven't isolated the impact o

by ac 14y ago

Yes, things like changes to core library types are disastrous. But, if you have a core data-type that you know will change and you haven't isolated the impact of these changes by, say, using accessor functions, you're the one to blame. See my long-ish reply in the sibling thread for details. And, yeah, I've learned all this the hard way :(

Peaker 14y ago
One of the nice things about Haskell, is that changes that are disastrous in other languages are not necessarily disastrous. I think any notion of blame is really irrelevant here. The discussion was whether this kind of feature is useful. I think you implied it wasn't, because the cases it were useful in are those in which you did something wrong. But that does not follow at all. It is very possible one is to blame for a horrible mistake in the codebase, and that it still needs and can be fixed. This feature makes that fix cheaper and more practical.
- ac 14y ago
  I mentioned earlier that I found the GHCI use-case extremely useful (see my root comment after EDIT). But I have an issue with the uses like turning off the typesystem and have the project compile just so that you could feel good about yourself. I don't believe that would help your bottom-line. But, as long as I don't have to work with you or your software, I don't care. And, large refactoring efforts are necessary in every complex and evolving system, irrespective of your language of choice -- but turning off your type checker or any other static guarantees isn't the way to go. Programming is hard enough even in the presence of type-checking and automated analyses -- why make it even harder? Anyway, I feel like I've made my point enough -- take it or leave it.
  - Peaker 14y ago
    > But I have an issue with the uses like turning off the typesystem and have the project compile just so that you could feel good about yourself That's a strawman. The claim is that it is useful to be able to compile a partially-valid program so that you can: * Test actually running stuff * Get the inferred types of expressions The idea is to temporarily turn it off just to run some tests or infer some types, and then turn it on again for the rest of the work. I think that you're arguing against a point that no one is making. Everyone agrees you should not use this feature for any other purpose except to temporarily allow some tests and exploration.

by ac 14y ago

Peaker 14y ago

One of the nice things about Haskell, is that changes that are disastrous in other languages are not necessarily disastrous. I think any notion of blame is really irrelevant here. The discussion was whether this kind of feature is useful. I think you implied it wasn't, because the cases it were useful in are those in which you did something wrong. But that does not follow at all. It is very possible one is to blame for a horrible mistake in the codebase, and that it still needs and can be fixed. This feature makes that fix cheaper and more practical.

ac 14y ago
I mentioned earlier that I found the GHCI use-case extremely useful (see my root comment after EDIT). But I have an issue with the uses like turning off the typesystem and have the project compile just so that you could feel good about yourself. I don't believe that would help your bottom-line. But, as long as I don't have to work with you or your software, I don't care. And, large refactoring efforts are necessary in every complex and evolving system, irrespective of your language of choice -- but turning off your type checker or any other static guarantees isn't the way to go. Programming is hard enough even in the presence of type-checking and automated analyses -- why make it even harder? Anyway, I feel like I've made my point enough -- take it or leave it.
- Peaker 14y ago
  > But I have an issue with the uses like turning off the typesystem and have the project compile just so that you could feel good about yourself That's a strawman. The claim is that it is useful to be able to compile a partially-valid program so that you can: * Test actually running stuff * Get the inferred types of expressions The idea is to temporarily turn it off just to run some tests or infer some types, and then turn it on again for the rest of the work. I think that you're arguing against a point that no one is making. Everyone agrees you should not use this feature for any other purpose except to temporarily allow some tests and exploration.