News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Gleam 0.14 – Type-safe language for the Erlang VM. Parent comment

Re:Gleam 0.14 – Type-safe language for the Erlang VM by devoutsalsa on Thursday February 18, 2021 @09:26PM (#26188807)
As dumb as this sounds... you can use typespecs as documentation even if you never run dializer. We do this at work in a legacy code base that would be painful to dialyze without errors, but it makes new code nicer to look at.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gleam 0.14 – Type-safe language for the Erlang VM by warmwaffles on Thursday February 18, 2021 @09:31PM (#26188845)
I use it exactly for this. Just use typespecs as a hint to the person looking at the code as to what is expected to be passed.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gleam 0.14 – Type-safe language for the Erlang VM by bcrosby95 on Thursday February 18, 2021 @11:45PM (#26189866)
If you never do anything but read them... why not documentation?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gleam 0.14 – Type-safe language for the Erlang VM by warmwaffles on Friday February 19, 2021 @09:49AM (#26193709)
I do both. All to help me in the future as much as possible when I come back scratching my head.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gleam 0.14 – Type-safe language for the Erlang VM by slindz on Friday February 19, 2021 @01:01AM (#26190234)
Terseness.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gleam 0.14 – Type-safe language for the Erlang VM by devoutsalsa on Friday February 19, 2021 @07:12AM (#26192277)
Yup. One could write "It takes a string as an argument & reverses it". Or one could write "String.reverse(()". For any non trivial case, such as weird options, you'll normally write documentation anyway.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gleam 0.14 – Type-safe language for the Erlang VM by rkangel on Friday February 19, 2021 @07:20AM (#26192351)
Isn't there a big risk the typespecs are wrong then?
[ Parent | on HN ]