3 ms·
Sorry to be That Guy but this is one of the reasons I'm really getting into Haskell, the more I study it. Clojure's still stronger for exploratory work, but Has
by michaelochurch 12y ago
Sorry to be That Guy but this is one of the reasons I'm really getting into Haskell, the more I study it. Clojure's still stronger for exploratory work, but Haskell's the only language where I feel comfortable that I'm breaking nothing when I "move fast" (at least, on code I haven't touched in a while).
Ok, I'm totally That Guy so I'm just going to shut up.
- scott_karana 12y agoI think you must have missed the point somewhere. Test coverage and metrics are important not just to catch "programming" errors but also logical and semantic errors. Haskell only partially helps with those other categories.
- michaelochurch 12y agoAbsolutely true. I think that if you know how to use it, Haskell's type system can reduce your bug count substantially. It makes a difference, spending 30% of your time debugging as opposed to 70%. (These numbers are approximate and vary depending on the problem you're working on.) You still need to test, though. That is true. QuickCheck does a lot for that.
- calibraxis 12y agoHow do you evaluate Clojure's core.typed and Prismatic Schema? (If you've had a chance.)
- michaelochurch 12y agoI haven't. I tried core.typed a year ago and it was still not very mature, but I'm glad it exists and I'm sure that it has advanced a long way. It's an ambitious project and I'm really glad it funded (I donated).