I would challenge this. My experience writing ocaml and F#, when a task calls for mostly imperative style, is that especially assuming immutability is helpful maintaining a program's structure and that specified function arg and return types are still useful when making changes.
-
-
-
Are you saying that immutability-by-default /isn't/ strong language support for expression-oriented style?
- Još 12 drugih odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
I’m using haskell, and I don’t know what this means, what exactly is claimed by this statement, and why it makes sense :/ — what is expression-oriented vs statement-oriented? and why is the former safer than the latter?
-
Everybody talks about the OOP/FP dichotomy (I'm guilty as charged), but nobody can agree on what either term means. Let's make the conversation more useful by looking at a different, easier-to-recognize dichotomy. I suggest "statement oriented" vs "expression oriented".
- Još 3 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Not quite - Haskell's type system does wonders even for imperative-style coding via monads, monad stacks, etc - having a function's effects declared in the type signature is a lifesaver. Agree that pure code (AKA expressions) is at a whole different level of reliability, tho.
-
See, I'm not sure what we mean by "pure" in this context. (Everyone seems to be using their own definition, so I avoid the term.)
- Još 3 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
take but this is partly because most other languages don't have linear/affine types -
you're saying linear types let you give meaningful signatures to statements? i think i can see that. i've yet to play with linear types, but i really should :-)
- Još 3 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
There's nothing stopping you from writing your Haskell app entirely with string values though

Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.