Re:Lisp and Haskell (2017)
by bad_user on Sunday July 15, 2018 @08:04AM
(#17534871)
I’m a Scala developer, using many libraries inspired by Haskell equivalents.
I have to disagree, types are not sufficient as documentation and this is what kept me from making the jump to Haskell actually.
But types are better than nothing, or better than outdated documentation. I can’t imagine anything worse than code written in a dynamic language and without any documentation.
This is the same discussion as with types vs tests. Types give you certain proofs for free, freeing you from writing certain types of tests. And they make property based testing easier. But the ideal is to have types + tests, types + good documentation, etc.
I have to disagree, types are not sufficient as documentation and this is what kept me from making the jump to Haskell actually.
But types are better than nothing, or better than outdated documentation. I can’t imagine anything worse than code written in a dynamic language and without any documentation.
This is the same discussion as with types vs tests. Types give you certain proofs for free, freeing you from writing certain types of tests. And they make property based testing easier. But the ideal is to have types + tests, types + good documentation, etc.