Re:Anders Hejlsberg: You Can't Maintain Large Programs in Ja...
by gaius on Monday June 04, 2012 @08:03AM
(#4063600)
I don't ever have to write a test in OCaml to tell me what I need to fix if I change a function signature, or add another item to a struct or an enum, or change a function to return something else, or anything like that. The compiler does it all. Every code path is evaluated at compile time. 90% of unit testing is just not needed in OCaml or Haskell (and that which you do need, there's QuickCheck for).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Anders Hejlsberg: You Can't Maintain Large Programs in Ja...
by sirclueless on Monday June 04, 2012 @08:41AM
(#4063699)
I had the same experience when writing Haskell. I would start by inserting a function call at the top level referencing a function I hadn't written yet, and then start hacking on the function and all its helpers. Without fail, as soon as the program compiled it was basically correct. The only thing that could go wrong were legitimate algorithmic errors, such as using the wrong base cases for recursion or something.