News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re: Haskell is our first choice for building production soft... by neutronicus on Monday January 11, 2021 @10:32AM (#25730210)
I worked on a large-ish C++/Python codebase and touching the Python parts was always extremely frustrating for me.

The lack of .h files alone is a huge grievance for me - I had to scroll past definitions even to know names and arities of class methods, read constructors to know what's in class members.

SciPy was nice enough for turning data into a picture, though.

Re: Haskell is our first choice for building production soft... by supergarfield on Monday January 11, 2021 @10:48AM (#25730479)
> The lack of .h files alone is a huge grievance for me

That's an interesting point... Besides C and its derivatives, and OCaml, do other languages have separate definition files? It seems like newer languages, even statically typed, normally don't.

I suspect the reason is that you have to duplicate all definitions, which seems like rote work. It also feels less necessary with IDE tooling: IDEs I know have a view for all definitions in a file.

Re: Haskell is our first choice for building production soft... by mumblemumble on Monday January 11, 2021 @11:17AM (#25730972)
They don't, but, at least in object-oriented languages, much of overall experience is easy enough to replicate with formal interfaces and coding standards.
Re: Haskell is our first choice for building production soft... by KingOfCoders on Monday January 11, 2021 @11:30AM (#25731223)
I thought the nice thing about Modula-2 was that you could browse through interface files to understand some code and then go into implementations.
Re: Haskell is our first choice for building production soft... by mumblemumble on Monday January 11, 2021 @11:37AM (#25731351)
It's true, but there are so many ways to skin that cat. Smalltalk, for example, gives an even more fluid way to browse at a high level and then drill in, and it doesn't (necessarily) have source code files in the first place.