I don’t think anyone actually thinks this, so I have some concern that this is basically just reinforcing inaccurate stereotypes about Haskellers
-
-
-
I've had people claim it to me quite seriously.
- Još 20 drugih odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
This is what Haskeller actually believe
-
We don't believe it, we definitely know it.
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
While everyone is jumping into defensive mode in all kind of ways I agree. I believe that if i was to pick 15 random JS and Haskell libs the JS ones would be more likely to have examples. Couldn’t that possibly at least partly stem from “just look at the types” sentiments?
-
I fill my recent libs with examples. E.g. http://hackage.haskell.org/package/fin-0.0.1/docs/Data-Type-Nat.html … Wait. Is it documentation, or tests; what are they? Btw, if you have bad RNG, which prefers Garbriel's, Edward's, few other people's packages: the statement won't hold.
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
‘Module documentation is published on Pursuit.’ Is my favourite thing to see when looking for a PureScript library.
-
A bit late, but I should follow this shitpost up by saying the PureScript by Example book (on the other hand) is great: https://leanpub.com/purescript/read
- Još 3 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
To be honest I prefer type signatures in Haskell to Python documentation based on examples.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
My co-worker consider docs as noise that can't be the source of truth as it can stay behind code. He also forces me to write verbose self explicative code saying that that will be always the source of truth. I'm all for docs and don't care much about code . Guess I love noise
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.