Any => Any composes better than any other types, so why don’t we just use that type for all our functions? Because composition at the cost of correctness is not a feature, but an anti-feature.
Would you perhaps agree that sometimes types are not expressive enough and get in the way? e.g. that have only Simple Types (plus a fixpoint operator, for recursion?), say à la Pascal, is such a limit on abstraction that it's easier to build Lisp on top and use that.
-
-
This is the most I would agree to:https://twitter.com/jdegoes/status/988243328008306689?s=21 …
-
But there are lots of dimensions of crap. Lack of system supported precise static types of only one of them. And in many cases, the option of satisfying such types isn't even present. Many argue such is the case for Java checked exceptions, for instance.
- 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!