On Dec 23, 2013, at 14:16, Chris Zheng wrote: > I completely agree with Korny that types are a premature optimisation.
My take is that required types may force premature optimization and may inhibit the creative process. So, I like dynamic languages. However, optional types (preferably with type inference) give me the choice to add typing if, when, and how I think it will be worthwhile. So, I may still premature, but at least it's my mistake to make... Any time that a function is going to be distributed beyond its initial project, I would assert that appropriate forms of typing (eg, schema, Typed Clojure) should be evaluated (and probably used). Going a bit further, I'd like to assert that every publicly-distributed function (etc) in the Clojure ecosystem should have appropriate use of typing. This should be integrated into the online documentation and testing support, to make it readily and usefully available. And a pony. -r -- http://www.cfcl.com/rdm Rich Morin r...@cfcl.com http://www.cfcl.com/rdm/resume San Bruno, CA, USA +1 650-873-7841 Software system design, development, and documentation -- -- 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.
