Writing software in typed languages is biased towards one big-bang finish, with less visibility of incomplete half-broken versions en route.
-
Well, corroborating it with evidence would be a start—though I do agree with the intuition. Types are a tool that needs learning
My evidence is that you can't "just run the code anyway, and see how far it gets before crashing" with types.
-
-
That is only true for one particular style of programming, where you specify the full type of your program up front.
-
Building a program bottom up is very much possible in piecemeal fashion with static checking.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Though I'm not intending to add positive/negative sentiment to that. Is being able to run something that's broken a good thing?
-
Data point: Martin added ??? to Scala. Another data point: I use this feature regularly while prototyping.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
GHC supports running partially checked programs. (Also eclipse ecj but who cares).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
There's a feature for that in GHC
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.