ReasonML not getting sourcemaps. Why do functional programmers sneer at debugging? Seems to be a value judgement that signals membership in the tribe. Debuggers are for stupid people.https://github.com/BuckleScript/bucklescript/issues/1699#issuecomment-618808130 …
-
-
But some programming styles are nigh impossible unless you have either: for instance, tall functional abstractions (stacks of monad transformers, etc.). In Clojure? Forget it, you'll never find which paren you misplaced; opaque backtraces and no types—oops.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'll have to disagree with 'make a debugger redundant'. If you're doing anything of complexity or scale, you absolutely want the slo-mo replay with materialized values. What if you got your types wrong? How would you know? Debuggers, tracers etc are non negotiable for me.
-
To evaluate using a PL I first check out the IDE support and the debugger. If it can’t do sound renaming and jump to definitions and set breakpoints then it’s a strong pass. No fancy language features can outweigh such basic handicaps
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Sorry but "typesystem preventing problems" is a fallacy I'm bored to ear. I've never seen a typesystem or a debugger replacing tests. Just invest in writting good tests and your problems will be more focused on what provide value.
-
I didn't say it prevent *all* problems. I'm saying the set of problems it solves overlaps with the set of problems a debugger, or tests, solve. Which is so obviously true it takes a very special kind of superintelligent idiot to deny it.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
Read my blog!