4 ms·

You’re making two invalid assumptions that break down when dealing with a functional paradigm. 1. You don’t have breakpoints, your code doesn’t run. Your code

You’re making two invalid assumptions that break down when dealing with a functional paradigm. 1. You don’t have breakpoints, your code doesn’t run. Your code is the thing that configures the code that runs. Your code is descriptive. 2. Nothing unexpected can happen. That’s the point of pure functions and a strong type system. You don’t need to know the exact values that flow through at runtime to know that your code functions as written. Granted, if you write code that doesn’t make sense then it will produce* results that don’t make sense. If you don’t fully understand the problem you’re trying to solve no programming paradigm can save you from creating bugs.

noname120 2y ago
Well that's the theory. Then the code becomes so complex that the type checker is not able to explore all the ramifications anymore. Or if it does then it takes an exponential amount of time, which is the worst ever. After all I guess you're right that the code won't run, but not for a good reason. Have you ever waited forever for Typescript to finish its typechecking and it eventually just gave up and timed out because it was too complex? Now imagine that the typechecker is the only thing that stands between you and insanity. If there is a bug in the framework (here Effect) then you're in trouble because these layers of abstraction make it an absolute nightmare to figure out that it's not your code but the framework that has a bug — you can't step through your code, and there is only so much that you can encode in types.