News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Vale Programming Language by melling on Friday November 20, 2020 @10:14AM (#25161187)
I like explicit types on functions too.

However, it might be what I’m used to.

Do you think this would be less of a problem with editor/IDE support? Using colors, or other visuals, to infer and show the types while editing might overcome this desire.

Re:The Vale Programming Language by steveklabnik on Friday November 20, 2020 @10:21AM (#25161264)
Rust did not choose to infer types in signatures for UX and stability reasons. If you infer types in signatures, then a change in the body of the function can change the type of the function, which makes dealing with backwards compatibility harder. Also, it leads to weird "errors at a distance."
Re:The Vale Programming Language by kroolik on Friday November 20, 2020 @10:26AM (#25161326)
I call this property "an accidental complexity" - when changing one piece of code causes failures in other, seemingly unrelated parts of the system. The property causes fear of introducing changes, and is usually a sign of tight coupling.
Re:The Vale Programming Language by skohan on Friday November 20, 2020 @12:07PM (#25162420)
I tend to agree with the philosophy that a language should not require an IDE to be productive in.

With function signatures, I think it's particularly relevant for documentation as well. I should be able to look at a function signature in generated docs and know everything about what goes into and comes out of that function. For me the signature should be a complete contract, and changing code within a function body should not be able to change the signature.