natec425

> obvious intuition

I don't mean to throw it out, but I try to be skeptical of obvious intuition. I just feel like people were saying "the Earth is obviously flat" (and plenty of other examples). Which from a practical point of view for a lot of people, the Earth was effectively flat. I'm certainly not saying "FP-Master-Race!" But I try to be wary of the fact that history is important but imperfect. Imperative programming is terrifically important, but that does not necessarily mean it is inherently more humane.

Do you have any measurable (preferably peer-reviewed) evidence that suggests imperative programming is inherently easier? That sounds like a challenging claim to make.

I do think Python is an acceptable language for beginners, but I wouldn't say it has little magic. It may feel intuitive at times, but Python's magic methods can be somewhat disorienting for students. This usually hits when students reach for-loops (and to some extent during branching due to __bool__).

Also, Python may feel like a small language at times, but it is really quite large and complex. This can be seem by imagining a beginners perspective when Googling for help with a simple list operation. The inevitable Stack Overflow answer will almost certainly use a comprehension. I would argue that Pyret is actually fundamentally less complex than than Python.

As always, the biggest issues are your goals, constraints, and resources. If you can afford to spend time in a language optimized for education, that is fantastic. If you can't afford that time, python starts to look like a good trade off relative to the languages with reasonable job prospects.

* It doesn't make me an expert, but I do teach programming for a living. We use happily use python for introductory content and server-side web content, but I can easily see Pyret as a great option for an educational offering with different constraints than mine.

> For example, Elm, a language largely inspired by Haskell, doesn't have partial functions.

I may be wrong, but I don't think this is technically true. I don't think Elm has only total functions, but it does avoid a lot of common, error-prone partial functions (e.g. accessing elements from a collection).

I don't think they are saying external factors don't/can't affect happiness. I think they are saying that manipulating external factors is an inferior strategy for improving happiness.

I don't know if i could offer a "path", but here are a few ideas to try out:

1. Start using hypothesis or jsverify. 2. Play around with Elm. 3. Participate in a community that highly values types.

## Properties vs Types

Just to explain a bit, types and properties are about program correctness. So they serve the same purpose for us. Types are essentially properties that your type checker can prove for you. Sometimes it is hard or impossible to prove something, so you might reach for property based tests to "approximate" the proof.

So when I'm thinking about my code correctness: 1. write a type where I can 2. write a property where I want to write a type 3. write examples to keep me grounded

Property based testing frameworks will help you move up that ladder.

## Elm

Of course, it will also be helpful to start actually leveraging a type system. I think Elm is a good option for people who are new to using types this way. It has a powerful, but relatively simple, type system that can help you learn good type design without having to deal with all of the features that Haskell/Scala/Rust/Ocaml/etc would have. Also, it has pretty great compiler error messages. So it should be less intimidating than a lot of nearby options.

## Community

Community might be the most important element. Participating in a community that values types (again, I suggest Elm) will be a great investment. Downloading Elm and a property based testing library could be a recipe to feel overwhelmed. Be sure to have a slack channel/mailing list/irc channel ready to help you when you start to feel overwhelmed.

Ah. Thank you for the links. Also, thanks for hypothesis.

That does happen, but I think the issue is more with education around using types. A lot of people nowadays spend a few years in python/js/java/etc before they have the chance to spend time in a community that really embraces types as the fundamental design tool. Also, it is hard to see the benefits of good typing if my first statically typed language is Java and I'm constantly told to cast into and out of Object. So, I put a lot of blame on the way people are taught to program. People tend to have a pretty hard time uprooting years of experience.

> This sounds like C# as written by people that don't really know or like C#. If you're stuffing everything into strings or a dynamic, you missed the point of the type system in a very serious way.

I agree, but I think it is the reality. Software development is a job, not divine appointment. And assuming it is reality, I think the best short term gain those developers isn't doubling down on type systems.

> It also strikes me as strange that people can't be bothered to use the type system provided by the language, but they can be bothered to maintain and add unit tests for their programs. Correctness enforced by types is fused with the code; if you get the types right, you should be all set. There's no additional maintenance beyond making sure that the code compiles.

I'm totally with you. I remember a friend being so impressed when a hypothesis test caught a bug in an example that I set up. The funny thing was that I made the example from a function over an F# Union. A lot of people seem to get super irritated by compiler errors but seem to be really impressed by clever testing. I think it has to do with the error messages. Property based testing frameworks tend to show you the simplest concrete example of your error. Type checkers tend to show you the most abstract example of your error. Maybe if type checkers started to to incorporate more concrete examples of error, people would generally find them more appealing.

I've started to feel the same way. I feel like a lot of developers would be better off in a dynamically-typed language because it is such common practice to completely subvert the type system and there are such strong resources available for improving testing practices.

My last job was in C#, and it seemed like so many things were stringly typed, entirely nullable, or used something else to weaken the type system.

In addition to this failure to use the type systems, testing is becoming a much more rich environment. I think popular resources on effective testing are much better and numerous than popular resources on effective typing. There are great books and tools around helping developers test their software more thoroughly and efficiently. Comparing these testing resources with typing resources, the closest popular book I can think of for typing is Design Patterns, and I don't think most popular type systems are built with the program correctness as a top priority.

I think rich type systems like haskell's will play more of a role in the future, and I think current users of these systems do experience a benefit. But if you have only ever done dynamically typed programming or used Java/C#, you are probably going to improve your correctness more over the next year by using a property based testing tool like propr (ruby), hypothesis (python), fscheck (.net), scalacheck (jvm), or jsverify (js), spec (clojure).

I disagree with one of your three conditions; I don't think all team members need to be of similar skill. Particularly, I think agile practices can be very good for knowledge sharing between senior and junior developers.

As for trust and values, I might combine the two and say that members have to trust in each others values. For example, I don't want to bother to get my code reviewed by someone who doesn't care about its quality, and I don't want to put in the effort to review someone's code if they are only having it reviewed to satisfy the process. These differences in values can really suck the energy out of the process.