News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:We need less powerful languages (2015) by nine_k on Wednesday February 01, 2023 @06:00PM (#34619307)
Can you write a function in a REPL and run it instantly? Can you easily inspect intermediate results?

In this regard I love Haskell's REPL mode, it's really productive for prototyping. It has a worse discoverability / autocompletion story than Python REPL though.

Re:We need less powerful languages (2015) by jimbob45 on Wednesday February 01, 2023 @06:03PM (#34619358)
The only time I've ever needed a REPL is if I'm working with a badly architected codebase such that I don't know the shapes of my inputs. It's otherwise pretty easy to reason about well-architected code without needing to run it.
Re:We need less powerful languages (2015) by sli on Wednesday February 01, 2023 @08:37PM (#34620888)
A lot of Lisp development is (or can be) REPL-based, Clojure(script) especially, but that's almost a whole paradigm in and of itself.
Re:We need less powerful languages (2015) by wtetzner on Wednesday February 01, 2023 @11:20PM (#34622022)
Having spent a lot of time writing both Clojure and Rust professionally, I think a lot of the benefit you get from a REPL is making up for the lack of a good type system and good IDE support. I also find that the support Rust has for unit tests partially makes up for the lack of a REPL.

Clojure has a bunch of other benefits over Rust when it comes to quick prototyping though.

Re:We need less powerful languages (2015) by anon291 on Thursday February 02, 2023 @12:13AM (#34622358)
In Haskell, you always know the shape of the input, so this completely misses the point of what the commenter above is trying to say.
Re:We need less powerful languages (2015) by GoblinSlayer on Thursday February 02, 2023 @01:59AM (#34623122)
For me the most interesting and non-obvious property of the code is how the whole thing interacts in the long run, but you can't possibly figure that out with REPL as preparation of inputs would be immense.