3 ms·
In lisp you have the power to easily invent abstractions. Strip things down to a bare minimum and you can see that your code is good. And write some tests just
by GreaterFool 12y ago
In lisp you have the power to easily invent abstractions. Strip things down to a bare minimum and you can see that your code is good. And write some tests just in case.
OTOH in strongly typed languages with rich type systems the actual code might be uglier and more complicated because you're constructing a proof of something. The property might be week (tests needed!) or strong (tests? what tests). Depends how far the rabbit hole you want to go.
At least that's my view on this.
- kd0amg 12y agouglier and more complicated because you're constructing a proof of something It's rare for the programmer to actually produce proofs that a piece of code meets the spec given by its type[1]. Those proofs are generally produced by the type checker, possibly with occasional hints from the programmer. 1: Even in Coq, detailed specs for some code are typically given (and proven) separate from the code itself rather than in that code's own type.