Thanks for the link! I really liked the interview, it was interesting and fun to watch.
J On Monday, October 7, 2013 9:49:24 AM UTC+9, brad bowman wrote: > > > zcaudate <z...@caudate.me <javascript:>> Oct 05 08:35PM -0700 > > I'm a little bit miffed over this current craze of `types` and > > `correctness` of programs. It smells to me of the whole `object` craze > of > > the last two decades. I agree that types (like objects) have their uses, > > especially in very well defined problems, but they have got me in > trouble > > over and over again when I am working in an area where the goal is > unclear > > and requirements are constantly changing. > > Joe Armstrong and Simon Peyton Jones discuss Erlang and Haskell > http://www.infoq.com/interviews/armstrong-peyton-jones-erlang-haskell > > This interview covers some of the strong-types vs flexible development > (apparent) dichotomy, but in a playful, open and non-dogmatic way. > (catmatic?) > > Simon Peyton Jones is one of the Haskell leaders, yet admits to > being envious of type-free generics. Joe Armstrong of Erlang fame > also sees the benefit to thinking in and annotating types. > These two are both leaders of typed or dynamic cults but have > a pleasant friendly and frank conversation about the issues. > (Erlang's Dialyzer sounds somewhat like core.typed) > > A sample: > > SPJ: So, I've told you what I most envy about Erlang. What do you most > envy > about Haskell? > > JA: All the types. I mean they're very nice. I wish we had them. On the > other > hand, wouldn't you love to have all these generic turn-to-binary, these > sort > of things? How can you live without them? > > SPJ: I have a little bit of residual envy about generics. > > JA: You just take anything and compare it to the serializer and then send > it? > > SPJ: That's sinfully easy, and shouldn't be allowed. > > > So if these two can agree that there's strengths and weaknesses in both > approaches, that settles it for me. It's a matter of knowing your > trade-offs and choosing your tools appropriately. > > My suspicion is that type affinity is related to some trait of > personality, > and so trying to "prove" superiority is a likely to work as "proving" you > are right in any other clash of personalities. > > Brad > > -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
