5 ms·

> Completely agree. 9 times out 10, something compiles and works as expected, and can stay working in production for years. I don't know of any other language w

by axilmar 13y ago

> Completely agree. 9 times out 10, something compiles and works as expected, and can stay working in production for years. I don't know of any other language where I can do this and keep developing (and prototyping) the codebase. How is this even possible? Haskell can't catch the logic errors done over time and space, and these errors are the majority of errors in all programming languages, Haskell included.

thirsteh 13y ago
I'm not trying to say you can't make errors in Haskell, just that, if you know what you're doing, slip-ups are extremely rare in the language. (Hence "9 times out of 10.") It's true, to some extent, with other statically checked languages, but they usually don't have separation effects, sum types, etc.
- axilmar 13y ago
  > if you know what you're doing So it's 9 times of ten if you know what you are doing, which is hardly the most often case.
  - thirsteh 13y ago
    > So it's 9 times of ten if you know what you are doing, which is hardly the most often case. If you don't at all know what you're doing, you're gonna fail every time, anywhere. It is obviously subjective, and I don't think I implied otherwise. Do you know what sum types are? If so, won't you agree with me that there are many kinds of errors you can make in languages without them than in ones where the compiler complains if you haven't e.g. covered each constructor in a pattern match? Even more so with separation of effects, and other things that only really exist in Haskell.
    - axilmar 13y ago
      > If you don't at all know what you're doing, you're gonna fail every time, anywhere. Not really. In programming, most of the time you think you know what you are doing but you really don't remember all the states and all the details, which results in bugs. > Do you know what sum types are? I do. > If so, won't you agree with me that there are many kinds of errors you can make in languages without them than in ones where the compiler complains if you haven't e.g. covered each constructor in a pattern match? In non object-oriented languages or in object-oriented languages without abstract methods, it's certainly possible. In object-oriented languages with abstract methods, it's not possible: for each missing case the compiler will complain with an error. > Even more so with separation of effects, and other things that only really exist in Haskell. Separation of effects doesn't really improve the situation with bugs. A bug may have its cause inside a pure computation.
      - thirsteh 13y ago
        Okay, it appears we fundamentally disagree, so let's end the discussion here.

by axilmar 13y ago

thirsteh 13y ago

I'm not trying to say you can't make errors in Haskell, just that, if you know what you're doing, slip-ups are extremely rare in the language. (Hence "9 times out of 10.") It's true, to some extent, with other statically checked languages, but they usually don't have separation effects, sum types, etc.

axilmar 13y ago
> if you know what you're doing So it's 9 times of ten if you know what you are doing, which is hardly the most often case.
- thirsteh 13y ago
  > So it's 9 times of ten if you know what you are doing, which is hardly the most often case. If you don't at all know what you're doing, you're gonna fail every time, anywhere. It is obviously subjective, and I don't think I implied otherwise. Do you know what sum types are? If so, won't you agree with me that there are many kinds of errors you can make in languages without them than in ones where the compiler complains if you haven't e.g. covered each constructor in a pattern match? Even more so with separation of effects, and other things that only really exist in Haskell.
  - axilmar 13y ago
    > If you don't at all know what you're doing, you're gonna fail every time, anywhere. Not really. In programming, most of the time you think you know what you are doing but you really don't remember all the states and all the details, which results in bugs. > Do you know what sum types are? I do. > If so, won't you agree with me that there are many kinds of errors you can make in languages without them than in ones where the compiler complains if you haven't e.g. covered each constructor in a pattern match? In non object-oriented languages or in object-oriented languages without abstract methods, it's certainly possible. In object-oriented languages with abstract methods, it's not possible: for each missing case the compiler will complain with an error. > Even more so with separation of effects, and other things that only really exist in Haskell. Separation of effects doesn't really improve the situation with bugs. A bug may have its cause inside a pure computation.
    - thirsteh 13y ago
      Okay, it appears we fundamentally disagree, so let's end the discussion here.