News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Learning Elm has gotten me confused about static vs. dyna... by tome on Wednesday June 15, 2016 @03:23AM (#11907680)
> These tests only cover the type space, which is trivial.

Granted it's not enormous, but if you think it's trivial you'll probably be surprised by the range of things you can encode in the Haskell type system.

Re:Learning Elm has gotten me confused about static vs. dyna... by kazinator on Wednesday June 15, 2016 @03:39PM (#11911570)
That encoding requires you to be a type system expert, and write reams of additional code surrounding the actual code. That additional code has to be well thought out and designed; proofs don't just pop out of thin air, all ready to go and represented as type via Curry-Howard!

Ordinary code does not encode very interesting things about itself via its typing. Well typed usually just means "there is no trivial mistake here", on about the same level as a missing semicolon in a C struct declaration.

Re:Learning Elm has gotten me confused about static vs. dyna... by dllthomas on Wednesday June 15, 2016 @09:04PM (#11913308)
That's just not true.

I have some interest in types (mostly practical, some theoretical) but I have no graduate degree, I still regularly encounter both theory and type voodoo I don't understand, and I wouldn't consider myself a "type system expert".

On a recent project I was able to use the type checker to help me catch things including 1) passing a bid price where I meant an ask price, 2) using an index into the wrong array, 3) calling a function not permitted to run on the thread in question (because of data access or deliberate marking).

This wasn't Haskell - it was C.