News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why Racket? Why Lisp? by klibertp on Thursday August 21, 2014 @06:08PM (#8209915)
There are other ways of making refactoring easy. I'm not trying to dismiss a powerful type system - which is a great help indeed - but pervasive unit tests and contracts work as well. Linters are a nice addition, and even gradual typing like in Erlang with Dialyzer is much better than nothing. The point being: problems solved by type systems are being solved with other tools, too. I don't want to argue about how well these tools work, because all of them (including static type systems) have relative strengths and weaknesses; it's just unfair to present refactorings or correctness guarantees as benefits reserved for type systems alone.
Re:Why Racket? Why Lisp? by codygman on Thursday August 21, 2014 @10:07PM (#8210572)
I'd argue that you can rely more on powerful types because they lend more to the totality of your program. This is just a hunch/intuition though. If I'm wrong, I'd be glad to know why and how so I can correct that ;)