On Jan 2, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org> wrote: > > > [Context destroyed by top posting.] > MigMit <miguelim...@yandex.ru> wrote: >> But really, "Design by Contract" — a theory? It certainly is a useful >> approach, but it doesn't seem to be a theory, not until we can actually >> prove something about it, and Eiffel doesn't seem to offer anything in >> this direction. > > You just stated (briefly, and not very rigorously) the theory: DbC is a > useful approach to programing. Note that it's a theory about *programming*, > not the resulting program.
Well, you can call that a theory, for sure. But I think it's usually called an "observation". I always thought the theory is something that allows us to develop some new knowledge. Just stating that "comfortable chairs make programmers more productive" doesn't constitute a theory. > Type classes are the wrong feature to look at. Type signatures are closer to > what DbC is. Are type signatures a hack to get around deficiencies in the > type inferencing engine? After all, you can strip all of them away and have > essentially the same program. I've tried to clarify my position in my response to Bob Hutchison. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
