3 ms·
I thought so too, but then I used OCaml and found myself very productive without explicitly annotating everything compared to Haskell. It gives you the speed of
by myaccountonhn 2y ago
I thought so too, but then I used OCaml and found myself very productive without explicitly annotating everything compared to Haskell. It gives you the speed of dynamic languages with the correctness of a static language. The LSP should be able to annotate for you.
The cases where I think it is necessary to annotate, I can do so.
- tome 2y agoI'm curious about what you mean by 'compared to Haskell'. You don't have to annotate everything in Haskell either, do you?
- myaccountonhn 2y agoYou don't, but the convention in Haskell is that you do. The linters I used complain for example if you don't annotate.
- dllthomas 2y ago> cases where I think it is necessary to annotate Worth noting that that can be reactive, too. If an type checking error message is confusing or insufficiently localized, pinning down a few things around it can clarify. As tome says, though, that can be a thing in Haskell too. There exist situations in Haskell where the compiler cannot figure out the types for you, but they're not most code.