3 ms·

Not sure why you are using lambda syntax instead of defining a method shrug, but anyway I don't think the type inference shortcoming is inherent to static typin

Not sure why you are using lambda syntax instead of defining a method shrug, but anyway I don't think the type inference shortcoming is inherent to static typing. See this similar post regarding type inference on fields: http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2009/01/26/why-no-var-on-fields.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2009/01/26/why-no-... I'm sure there is an equally reasonable explanation of costs and implications for your example. Eric Lippert would probably be happy to share it with you, why not ask him? :-)

scott_s 17y ago
You're right, statically typed languages can use type inferencing; both Haskell and Ocaml do.
trezor 17y ago
I'm sure there is an equally reasonable explanation of costs and implications for your example. There sure is. Had I defined a method (like you suggested), and just gone ahead and made my function variable point to that, the compiler would have enough information to infer types. In that case I would get away with the following: var someFunction = (X) => entropy(X); Just felt like contributing somethings which isn't on the HN daily list of languages, that's all :)