Conversation

eviedot
@eviedots
maybe a hot take, but I think this "get it right before i let you run it" approach is straight up bad UX design and it's a shame new languages like Rust haven't rejected it. tell me where I've made mistakes but still let me run my code goddammit
Quote Tweet
Bob Nystrom
@munificentbob
·
I like this article a lot. I can distinctly remember when I first started realizing that working through compile errors and designing the types for my program *was* programming and that fixing those errors was meaningful, important progress. twitter.com/healeycodes/st…
Show this thread
3
11
stephenjohnlimb
@stephenjohnlimb
Replying to
@brendanzab
and
@eviedots
Use REPL for snips of stuff. But I can’t see the point of trying to run code that is known to be broken. But yes use REPL for the bit you think is right. Or are you saying you need to put a break point in just before the broken bit so you can work out something?
1
Brendan Zabarauskas
@brendanzab
Yeah, the elaborator would generate something like a 'ReportedIssue' node when a problem is encountered. This crashes the program if it is run, which would allow you to still experiment with the program while it's in a partially correct state.
2
1
Show replies
ShriramKrishnamurthi
@ShriramKMurthi
Replying to
@brendanzab
and
@eviedots
This was a part of the point behind the (rarely known, and even then often misunderstood) concept of Soft Typing. Type systems don't know exactly what we do, give me warnings and let me get on with it. Problem is it requires a different language (than, say, Rust).
1
3
Brendan Zabarauskas
@brendanzab
Oh I think I’ve seen that before in paper titles, but haven’t got around to delving further. Is that compatible at all with type directed metaprogramming? I had always assumed not… this is something I’d have a hard time giving up!
1
Show replies