3 ms·
Honest question: why is that bad for actual programming stuff? Is it because the type theory is interesting but doesn't really help? Performance?
by gleenn 2y ago
Honest question: why is that bad for actual programming stuff? Is it because the type theory is interesting but doesn't really help? Performance?
- jrvieira 2y agoi am guessing that most people think that the cognitive load cost is usually not worth the benefits. i agree that the cognitive load in a language like js which is not prepared to accommodate this paradigm is not worth it even when deciding to use Haskell we need to weigh the pros and cons wrt the project's goals
- SkiFire13 2y agoIn this particular case IMO it's bad because it essentially removes nominal typing for arguably no benefit. Even in Lean, a dependently typed language where recursors can be made explicit, people prefer using pattern matching instead of them. There is even sugar for transforming some recursors-like functions into pattern matching like syntax. FYI in Lean recursors are marked as non-computable due to performance concerns, so you can use them to write proofs but not programs. Seen from yet another point of view, this is transforming inductive types in a function corresponding to a visitor. And yet functional programming folks spent years trying to convince people to replace visitors with proper inductive/algebraic data types and pattern matching, so this idea is a step backwards even for them.