Really wish my soft eng course at uni hadn't valorised code comments so much + instead explained that you should write code whose function is obvious + well written tests should explain everything else. It's a hard habit to get out of
Conversation
Have you tried documenting the affordances of your code with types too? Coupled with tests, that can make code much easier to understand down the line. Sadly many Uni courses seem to limit students exposure to type systems to Java and C, which is a very narrow, limited view. 😟
1
Not really, no. I work a lot in python these days which is, yeah, dynamically typed (though I will probably start using docs.python.org/3/library/typi to at least mitigate this somewhat). Yeah, otherwise, I've mostly been exposed to Java's way of doing it.
1
1
Though I'd love to pick up something like Rust to get a broader view 😇
1
1
Reason also looks pretty neat if you come from a JS background, but I’m not too sure how their documentation is right now. Hopefully will be improving in the coming year or so. That’s something Rust is doing a great job at.
1
1
They have similar type systems actually - once you learn a little of Reason/OCaml/Elm/Haskell/Rust, the others come much easier.
1
1
Ah, neat! Comforting to know they're not too dissimilar - I touched Haskell a little bit a while back but never put enough time into it.
1
1
Replying to
Yeah, can take a bit of effort. But yeah they all have their own strengths, but all tend to emphasise ‘types a design tool and programmer aid’.