@samth @bitemyapp @puffnfresh @djspiewak Cheers.
-
-
Replying to @dibblego
@dibblego@samth@bitemyapp@puffnfresh@djspiewak Sam is the author of typed racket. He’s kind an actual expert.4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cartazio
@cartazio@samth@bitemyapp@puffnfresh@djspiewak I know this; I was challenging for the killer argument. It never came.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @dibblego
@dibblego@cartazio@puffnfresh@djspiewak The whole problem here is your search for "killer arguments". Still,@bitemyapp's claim was false1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @samth
@samth@cartazio@puffnfresh@djspiewak@bitemyapp I agree it was at least hyperbolic, but yours raises more alarming questions.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dibblego
@dibblego@cartazio@puffnfresh@djspiewak@bitemyapp Such as?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @samth
@samth@cartazio@puffnfresh@djspiewak@bitemyapp I [knowingly] eschew types. Why? So far, I have seen only poor and vague reasons.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dibblego
@dibblego@cartazio@puffnfresh@djspiewak@bitemyapp b/c sometimes the work to convince a computer that the code is right isn't worth it.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @samth
@samth@cartazio@puffnfresh@djspiewak@bitemyapp What is an instance of that? All instances I have seen are so far lacking imagination.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dibblego
@dibblego@samth@puffnfresh@djspiewak@bitemyapp try writing an imperative program in coq. sometimes too much types is bad.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@cartazio @samth @puffnfresh @djspiewak @bitemyapp Do you mean, sometimes I want to specify part of my proof and not the whole proof?
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.